Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t just deliver a scathing majority opinion dismantling nationwide injunctions—she called out Ketanji Brown Jackson by name in the process.
The Supreme Court just witnessed an unprecedented smackdown.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t hold back when she delivered a devastating blow to her liberal colleague.
And Amy Coney Barrett utterly cooked Ketanji Brown Jackson with this blistering swipe in her landmark SCOTUS injunction opinion.
The Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions
The Supreme Court delivered a bombshell decision on June 27, 2025, that fundamentally changed how federal courts can block presidential actions across the entire country.
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court granted the Trump Administration’s request to limit nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship case.
Barrett’s majority opinion declared that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
The case stemmed from President Trump’s executive order on his first day back in office that sought to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Multiple federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order from taking effect anywhere in the country.
Conservative critics have hit Barrett in for increasingly siding with Court’s left-wing Justices.
But in this case, Barrett joined the conservative majority and put an end to that judicial overreach once and for all.
Barrett explained that the Court must ask "whether universal injunctions are sufficiently ‘analogous’ to the relief issued by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution."
Her answer was crystal clear: they are not.
Barrett Gets Personal With Jackson
What made Barrett’s opinion truly explosive wasn’t just the legal reasoning.
It was the personal shot she took directly at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Barrett’s majority opinion included a stunning personal rebuke of Jackson buried on pages 23 and 24 of the decision.
https://x.com/Heminator/status/1938600629267464346“>https://x.com/Heminator/status/1938600629267464346
Barrett wrote that Jackson "would do well to heed her own admonition" about everyone being "bound by law" – adding pointedly "That goes for judges too."
https://twitter.com/ConstantUnder/status/1938607082942378176
The line was a direct reference to Jackson’s own words, thrown back in her face by Barrett to make a devastating point about judicial restraint.
Barrett was essentially telling Jackson that if she believes everyone must follow the law, then judges shouldn’t exceed their constitutional authority by issuing nationwide injunctions either.
It was a masterclass in judicial smackdown.
Jackson’s Hypocritical Dissent Gets Exposed
Justice Jackson’s separate dissent in the case provided the perfect setup for Barrett’s brutal takedown.
Jackson argued in her dissent that the majority’s decision poses "an existential threat to the rule of law" and complained that courts should have broad power to announce what the law requires for everyone, not just individual plaintiffs.
But conservative commentator Julie Kelly exposed the glaring hypocrisy in Jackson’s position.
Kelly pointed out that Jackson was claiming the citizenship question wasn’t constitutionally settled while simultaneously demanding that courts have unlimited power to stop executive actions.
"Almost impossible to believe but KBJ is somehow way stupider than Sonia Sotomayor," Kelly wrote.
Kelly highlighted how Jackson’s dissent revealed her fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law and the proper role of federal courts.
The Real Issue: Judicial Overreach
Barrett’s majority opinion cut to the heart of the matter – liberal judges have been abusing their power for years.
Barrett wrote: "But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
This was a direct rebuke to Jackson and the liberal justices who believe courts should act as super-legislators.
For too long, single federal judges in liberal districts have been able to halt presidential policies nationwide with the stroke of a pen.
As the Trump administration pointed out, since Trump returned to the presidency, federal judges have issued 40 universal injunctions against his administration’s policies.
That judicial activism had to stop, and Barrett delivered the knockout punch.
Democrats Panic Over Loss of Judicial Weapon
The decision sent shockwaves through Democrat ranks who have relied on friendly judges to block Republican policies for years.
During oral arguments back in May, the liberal justices desperately tried to defend their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Justice Jackson argued the ruling would turn the justice system into a "catch me if you can" regime where everyone would need to hire lawyers and file individual lawsuits.
But Barrett saw right through that argument.
The real "catch me if you can" problem was judges shopping for the most liberal districts to file their lawsuits and get nationwide injunctions from activist judges.
Justice Barrett had pressed Trump’s attorney during oral arguments about practical concerns, but ultimately sided with limiting judicial overreach.
What This Means for Trump’s Agenda
Barrett’s decision is a massive victory for President Trump and executive authority.
The Court ruled that "The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
This means Trump can now move forward with implementing his policies without worrying about single judges in liberal districts blocking his entire agenda nationwide.
The birthright citizenship executive order can now be implemented in states where it hasn’t been specifically challenged.
Immigration enforcement can proceed without liberal judges in sanctuary jurisdictions blocking it everywhere.
And Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp and cut wasteful government spending can move forward unimpeded.
The Liberal Media Meltdown
Predictably, the liberal media and Democrat politicians are having a complete meltdown over Barrett’s decision.
They’re claiming it will lead to "chaos" and "unequal treatment" across different states.
But that’s exactly how federalism is supposed to work.
Different circuits can reach different conclusions, and ultimately the Supreme Court will provide final guidance on constitutional questions.
Legal experts note that this ruling "fundamentally alters the landscape in which federal courts issue injunctions against government actions" and addresses "concerns over judicial overreach."
Barrett’s decision restores the proper balance between the branches of government.
Jackson’s Credibility Takes Another Hit
This isn’t the first time Jackson has found herself on the wrong side of a major constitutional issue.
In recent Supreme Court terms, Barrett has had the lowest agreement rate with Jackson, highlighting their fundamental philosophical differences.
Jackson’s extreme liberal positions and poor legal reasoning have made her an outlier even among the Court’s liberal wing.
Earlier in June, Jackson issued "sharp dissents" attacking her colleagues for "pure textualism" and claimed they were showing favoritism to "moneyed interests."
But Barrett’s personal rebuke in this case may be the most devastating critique Jackson has faced from a colleague.
When a fellow justice calls you out by name and throws your own words back at you, that’s a sign your legal reasoning has serious problems.
The Road Ahead
Barrett’s decision marks a turning point in the ongoing battle over judicial power.
For too long, liberal judges have acted as a shadow legislature, using nationwide injunctions to impose their policy preferences on the entire country.
Barrett’s opinion makes clear that this practice "likely exceeds the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
President Trump now has the judicial backing he needs to implement his America First agenda without interference from activist judges.
The Deep State’s favorite weapon – forum shopping for friendly judges – has been significantly weakened.
And Jackson’s credibility as a serious legal mind has taken another devastating blow.
Barrett’s personal attack on Jackson in this opinion will be remembered as a defining moment – the day one of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees put a Biden appointee in her place and reminded everyone that judges are bound by law too.
The era of unlimited judicial activism has been dealt a major blow, and Amy Coney Barrett of all people delivered it.
Americans could only be more surprised if it had been Justice John Roberts or one the Court’s Democrat appointees.
