In a sharply worded opinion issued Friday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett took direct aim at her colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing what she described as Jackson’s “extreme” view of the judiciary’s role in American government. The remarks came as part of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions — orders from lower courts that block federal policies for all Americans, not just the parties involved in a specific case.
Barrett, writing for the 6–3 majority, backed the Trump administration’s emergency request to curtail these sweeping orders. The administration had sought to prevent federal judges from using nationwide injunctions to stall executive actions — in this case, President Donald Trump’s directive to end birthright citizenship for the children of non-citizens born on U.S. soil.
In her opinion, Barrett dismissed Jackson’s dissent as not only flawed but fundamentally incompatible with the U.S. legal framework. “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. She accused Jackson of paradoxically condemning an “imperial Executive” while advocating for what Barrett called an “imperial Judiciary.”
Jackson’s dissent argued that courts must have the authority to issue broad injunctions when constitutional violations are at stake, particularly when executive actions are believed to infringe upon fundamental rights. Barrett rejected this rationale, stating that Jackson’s vision “would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
The ruling does not eliminate all avenues for plaintiffs seeking broad relief. Barrett acknowledged that mechanisms such as class-action suits and statewide challenges remain permissible. But she reiterated that courts overstep their constitutional limits when they block federal policy for parties who are not involved in a given case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also issued a dissent, warning that the decision allowed the Trump administration to secure a tactical win on procedural grounds without defending the merits of the underlying policy.
She accused the Court of being “complicit” in Trump’s strategy to bypass substantive judicial review of the birthright citizenship order. “Trump played a different game,” Sotomayor wrote, highlighting that every lower court to review the order thus far has blocked it.
The policy in question seeks to undo a long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has, for over 150 years, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil, regardless of parental status.
While the Court’s decision restricts the use of nationwide injunctions, it does not greenlight the birthright citizenship order. Legal challenges are expected to continue, albeit under more constrained procedural frameworks.
