Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently wrote the majority opinion in a Supreme Court case about birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. The case, Trump v. Casa, INC, ended with a 6-3 decision, but it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent that caught a lot of attention, and not in a positive way.
Barrett criticized Jackson’s dissent, saying it was disconnected from established legal precedents and contradicted the Constitution. She pointed out that Jackson’s arguments seemed to challenge the authority of the Executive branch while simultaneously giving too much power to the Judiciary.
In her dissent, Jackson questioned the effectiveness of the Constitution itself. She posed a hypothetical scenario, asking what an outsider might think about a system that seems to leave victims to fend for themselves when their rights are violated. She expressed frustration, suggesting that constitutional rights might seem meaningless if the courts cannot enforce them.
Jackson also included a dramatic phrase in her dissent, saying, “wait for it,” which led to some ridicule on social media. Critics highlighted this moment as an attempt to add drama to her argument.
Throughout her dissent, Jackson criticized the majority for viewing district courts as the ones trying to grab power. She argued that the real issue was a potentially lawless Executive branch, but she did not consider that the courts might be overstepping their bounds.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions within the Supreme Court regarding the balance of power among the branches of government. Jackson’s dissent, while passionate, has drawn criticism for its approach and tone. The discussion surrounding this decision will likely continue as the implications of the ruling unfold.