Supreme Court Showdown: Amy Coney Barrett from the TOP ROPE!

Leave a CommentSupreme Court Showdown: Amy Coney Barrett from the TOP ROPE!Commentary

On June 27, 2025, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a sharp rebuke to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the Trump v. CASA case, a ruling limiting federal judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders, like President Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. Barrett, writing the 6-3 majority opinion, didn’t hold back, calling Jackson’s dissent “extreme” and “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” Her comment “we will not dwell…” translates as: “you are so stupid that you aren’t even worth responding to.”

The Justices typically maintain a collegial tone, even in disagreement, often addressing “the dissent” broadly to avoid personal attacks. Barrett, however, named Jackson repeatedly, accusing her of embracing an “imperial Judiciary” while decrying an “imperial Executive.” She even turned Jackson’s own words against her, quipping, “Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”

Jackson’s dissent argued that curbing nationwide injunctions threatens the rule of law, warning of an executive unbound by courts. Barrett dismissed this as unmoored from legal doctrine, dedicating three pages to dismantling Jackson’s position—a rare move that sparked chatter on X, with some calling it a “smackdown” and others decrying Barrett’s tone as unprofessional.

This clash highlights Barrett’s willingness to flex her conservative muscle while revealing tensions between the Court’s youngest justices, whose ideological divide could shape rulings for decades. The unusually pointed exchange underscores the high stakes of the case, which tilted power toward the executive, leaving Jackson’s warnings about democracy’s “collective demise” in sharp contrast to Barrett’s call for judicial restraint.

also noteworthy…

Justice Elena Kagan’s stance on nationwide injunctions shifted in the Trump v. CASA case, decided June 27, 2025. In 2022, Kagan criticized such injunctions, stating at Northwestern University’s law school, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.” She reiterated this during Trump v. CASA oral arguments, noting “forum shopping” issues across administrations. Yet, in the 6-3 ruling curbing these injunctions, Kagan dissented with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The majority, led by Justice Barrett, limited injunctions to specific plaintiffs, arguing they exceed federal courts’ equitable authority. The dissent, which Kagan joined, warned that restricting injunctions in this case—Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order—could deny citizenship to many during litigation, given its “patent unlawfulness.”

Kagan’s dissent suggests a context-driven shift, prioritizing the case’s stakes over her earlier procedural concerns. In oral arguments, she questioned the adequacy of class actions and pressed the government on potential barriers to relief. Her support for broader judicial intervention likely reflects the order’s challenge to the 14th Amendment, despite her prior skepticism about nationwide injunctions. This indicates a nuanced evolution rather than a full reversal, balancing principle with the need to address immediate harm.