Justice Amy Coney Barrett dismissed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent to a new Supreme Court decision that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, a problem that the Trump administration has faced for months.
Jackson claimed lower courts do not have limits on their authority to issue universal injunctions, writing that the executive branch should always comply with said injunctions.
Barrett did not entertain her liberal colleague’s argument.
“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 in the 6-3 majority opinion. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett continued. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that district courts exceeded their power by issuing universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order to take away birthright citizenship for children of those who entered the country illegally. The court did not rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett in the majority opinion. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Jackson in the dissenting opinion.
SUPREME COURT LIMITS NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IN TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE
Barrett continued critiquing Jackson’s reasoning and cited the Judiciary Act of 1789, which requires judges to observe their limits on judicial authority. Barrett said Jackson “skips over that part” because the law “involves boring ‘legalese,’” as Jackson put it.
“Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,’” Barrett concluded. “That goes for judges, too.”