Amy Coney Barrett Goes Right At The Jugular Of Biden’s DEI SCOTUS Justice

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”

So goes Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s response to Jackson’s dissent in Trump vs. CASA, Inc. The case concerned whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts’ nationwide injunctions on President Donald Trump’s executive order terminating birthright citizenship, issued January 20, 2025. The court was split along usual lines: 6 conservative justices with Trump, 3 liberal justices with CASA, Inc. (RELATED: SCOTUS Justice Takes Bold Stand Against The Constitution)

🚨BREAKING🚨 The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in its requests to partially enforce its birthright citizenship order.

6-3 decision. pic.twitter.com/cOyqHFAywR

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 27, 2025

Jackson not only dissented, but did so with “deep disillusionment,” following the majority opinion that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has given to federal courts.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.

It’s one for the ages. 

“By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached ‘a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court,’” Barrett writes. “The trend has continued: During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions.” 

The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court did not concern the question of the executive order’s legality. It instead concerned the powers of the federal district courts to issue university injunctions – in this case, those that would bar the executive order from applying to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in a local case. 

Barrett correctly bristles at the clear overstep of the judiciary. “The bottom line? The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” she notes. 

Trump scores major win in birthright citizenship case as Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions https://t.co/C7fYVCgQWL pic.twitter.com/Bqq1hvPDUP

— New York Post (@nypost) June 27, 2025

After establishing the positive argument for the majority’s decision, Barrett addresses Jackson’s dissent. 

“We will not dwell on [Jackson’s] argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett scathes. “We observe only this: [Jackson] decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” 

🚨 Justice Amy Coney Barrett did NOT mince words in this line from her majority opinion. https://t.co/8Fap70ggyI pic.twitter.com/VJTebmj7tv

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 27, 2025

Indeed, Jackson “offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,” per Barrett’s observation. “In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.’” 

Jackson “appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned,” according to Barrett. “In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.” (RELATED: Vicious SCOTUS Fight Proves One Judge Is In Way Over Her Head)

A huge rulling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges! pic.twitter.com/S3Os7RpV6F

— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 27, 2025

Barrett notes that actually scrutinizing the content of the law appears too onerous a task for Jackson. Jackson “skips over” critical analysis, “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’” Jackson does herself no favors in her dissent, characterizing the suit as “rais[ing] a mind-numbing technical query.”

Saturday morning cartoons are likely mind-numbingly technical for Jackson’s intellect. 

Barrett generously concludes with a piece of advice for her fellow justice: Jackson “would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law’… That goes for judges too.” Barrett goes right up to the line of expressly dismissing Jackson as an unqualified dimwit. 

Jackson’s dissent claims the majority’s opinion is focused on “inapt comparisons” and accuses her colleagues of a “myopic initial framing.” She charges the majority with “confusion” regarding constitutional law, making a “foundational mistake,” and delivering a “profoundly dangerous” ruling. Her dissent is, as per usual, more parts emotionally unhinged screed than constitutional analysis. 

“To the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts,” Jackson writes. The hallmark of a sharp legal mind is surely including stage directions in a legal dissent.

The most painful aspect of Jackson’s tenure is her obliviousness to her own lack of ability. The public knows she’s not very bright. So, too, do her fellow justices. Jackson is just sharp enough to be blind to her own shortcomings – but not sharp enough to overcome them.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03