Amy Coney Barrett Crushes Ketanji Brown Jackson with Devastating Line in Universal Injunction Opinion
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made a notable ruling regarding birthright citizenship, limiting nationwide injunctions that have previously impeded President Trump since his second term began. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that she misunderstood legal precedent and was advocating for an expansive judicial authority. barrett’s remarks highlighted Jackson’s contradictory stance on executive versus judicial power, asserting that she was attempting to impose limitations on the executive branch while endorsing an overreach by the judiciary. This ruling has been met with praise from conservative commentators, who view Barrett’s criticism of Jackson as a notable moment in Supreme Court discussions. In a broader political context, this decision is seen as favoring a conservative majority that could help maintain judicial limits on executive power amidst ongoing political tensions.
The Supreme Court of the United States has issued their ruling on birthright citizenship, pumping the breaks on nationwide injunctions by lower courts that have consistently hamstringed President Donald Trump since beginning his second term.
Although that in itself is great news for the executive who found himself sparring with the judicial branch over so many policies in looking to make good on his promises to the American people, the majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett contained one piece of solid gold when she absolutely obliterated fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her incompetence and failure to understand legal precedent.
Writing for the majority in this 6-3 decision, Barrett wrote on her fellow justice, “Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned.”
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Coney Barrett wrote, giving a scathing criticism of Jackson.
She then put the bow on this wonderful gift to the American people, noting the hypocrisy of Jackson in her denunciations of Trump while wanting a limitless judicial branch.
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett said of her colleague.
Deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist May Mailman summed up the opposition against Brown well, highlighting the limitless scope the justice envisioned for her branch.
“Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out,” she wrote via social media platform X.
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) June 27, 2025
Fox News host Laura Ingraham called the remarks a “brutal takedown.”
Justice Barrett’s brutal takedown of the dissent authored by Justice Jackson is something one wouldn’t have predicted from oral arguments. pic.twitter.com/oA6iX6Gxrx
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 27, 2025
Political analyst Ford O’Connell called the justice’s remarks, “the stuff of legends.”
I’ve been very disappointed in Associate Justice Barrett but her take down of Associate Justice Jackson in the majority opinion is the stuff of legends in the Nationwide Injunction case. #SCOTUS
— Ford O’Connell (@FordOConnell) June 27, 2025
The majority determined that, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Jackson looks completely out of her depth here, and Barrett said as much.
She was former President Joe Biden’s pick for SCOTUS, and it now seems painfully obvious that she was nothing more than a DEI hire.
Moments like Friday remind us just how lucky we are to not have another Biden term or a term for former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Imagine either possibly getting another SCOTUS pick to help countenance Jackson’s lunacy.
A 6-3 majority is safe territory to keep the more liberal justices like Jackson at bay.
But this is more of a pleasant surprise from Barrett, who has failed to deliver in previous rulings as a conservative stalwart.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
