Amy Coney Barrett dismisses Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent on injunctions
Justice amy Coney Barrett has dismissed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent regarding a Supreme Court decision that restricts the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch. In her dissent, Jackson argued that lower courts should not have limits on their authority to issue such injunctions and maintained that the executive branch is obligated to comply with them. Barrett, in the majority opinion of a 6-3 ruling, countered Jackson’s argument, stating that it contradicts over two centuries of legal precedent and the Constitution.She criticized Jackson for advocating an expansive judicial overreach while calling for limitations on executive power. Barrett emphasized that while the executive must follow the law, the judiciary does not possess unlimited authority to enforce it, reminding that the Judiciary Act of 1789 sets boundaries on judicial authority. The ruling notably addressed challenges to a Trump administration executive order regarding birthright citizenship.
Amy Coney Barrett dismisses Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent on nationwide injunction decision
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dismissed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent to a new Supreme Court decision that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, a problem that the Trump administration has faced for months.
Jackson claimed lower courts do not have limits on their authority to issue universal injunctions, writing that the executive branch should always comply with said injunctions.
Barrett did not entertain her liberal colleague’s argument.
“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,” Barrett wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett continued. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that district courts exceeded their power by issuing universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order to take away birthright citizenship for children of those who entered the country illegally. The court did not rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett in the majority opinion. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Jackson in the dissenting opinion.
SUPREME COURT LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IN TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE
Barrett continued critiquing Jackson’s reasoning and cited the Judiciary Act of 1789, which requires judges to observe their limits on judicial authority. Barrett said Jackson “skips over that part” because the law “involves boring ‘legalese,’” as Jackson put it.
“Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,’” Barrett concluded. “That goes for judges, too.”
" 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
