Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a sharp rebuke to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a major Supreme Court decision that limits the power of lower courts to block presidential actions nationwide.
The 6-3 ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. marked a significant win for President Donald Trump and narrowed the use of universal injunctions by federal judges.
Writing for the majority, Barrett argued that broad judicial authority oversteps constitutional bounds.
“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,” she wrote. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
The case addressed whether federal district courts can issue injunctions that extend beyond the parties involved in a case.
The ruling restricts courts from applying injunctions nationwide, a practice that has gained prominence in recent years as a tool to halt executive actions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the primary dissent, joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan.
In a separate dissent, Jackson criticized the majority for focusing too heavily on procedural technicalities rather than broader constitutional principles.
“It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” Jackson warned.
She criticized the majority’s interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as “legalese” that sidesteps fundamental questions about executive accountability.
Barrett responded directly to that argument.
“Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ [Jackson] seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance,’” Barrett wrote.
“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 emphasized that Jackson’s dissent departed from legal precedent and doctrine.
“Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’” Barrett wrote, “she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
Jackson ended her opinion without the traditional “I dissent” or “respectfully, I dissent,” a move that further underscored her dissatisfaction with the majority opinion.
Legal commentators took note of the tone.
Attorney Kostas Moros wrote on X, “Holy s—, this is about as brutal as I’ve ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own.”
Another lawyer added, “I’ve been very disappointed in Associate Justice Barrett, but her takedown of Associate Justice Jackson in the majority opinion is the stuff of legends in the Nationwide Injunction case.”
The justices did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Instead, the Court focused solely on whether lower courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions to block such policies, the New York Post reports.
The ruling is expected to reshape how challenges to federal policies proceed, forcing plaintiffs to seek narrower, more targeted judicial relief.
Critics argue this change could limit judicial oversight of sweeping executive actions.
