In a sharply worded majority opinion for Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered not only a decisive legal ruling but also a pointed critique of her colleague, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case, which addressed the use of universal injunctions and touched indirectly on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, concluded with a victory for the Trump administration. But the opinion’s legal impact was matched by its rhetorical force.
At the heart of the dispute was whether lower federal courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions — a tactic frequently employed by judges in liberal jurisdictions to halt Trump-era policies. Barrett, writing for the majority, affirmed a narrower judicial role, rejecting what she characterized as judicial overreach under the guise of equity.
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) June 27, 2025
President Trump celebrated the decision publicly, declaring it a “GIANT WIN” and suggesting it delivered a blow to what he called the “Birthright Citizenship Hoax.” Though the ruling did not directly overturn the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, its implications for immigration policy and executive authority are significant.
Justice Barrett’s opinion acknowledged the primary dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor but turned her sharpest criticism toward Justice Jackson’s separate dissent. Barrett accused Jackson of abandoning legal doctrine in favor of an activist judicial philosophy, writing that Jackson’s approach was “tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”
Amy Coney Barrett pulls no punches on judicial authoritarianism. Says Jackson is at odds with “the Constitution itself” and “ decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”
This is good ACB! pic.twitter.com/vPFGm078qd
— Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 27, 2025
Barrett continued her critique by drawing a stark contrast between judicial restraint and what she saw as Jackson’s vision of an “imperial Judiciary.” She dismissed Jackson’s argument as an oversimplification that neglected centuries of precedent and statutory limits. “Justice Jackson skips over that part,” Barrett wrote, referring to the necessary analysis of congressional constraints on the courts.
In perhaps the most biting passage, Barrett quoted Jackson’s own words — “everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law” — and turned them back on her, stating, “That goes for judges too.”
More of Barrett nuking Jackson from orbit: pic.twitter.com/joKaIdtr0v
— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) June 27, 2025
