Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's "extreme" dissent in the landmark birthright citizenship case in which the Supreme Court curtailed lower court use of universal injunctions.
"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," wrote Barrett, the court's second-newest justice, in a jaw-dropping rebuke of her colleague, the newest justice.
"We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
Barrett had authored the majority opinion in the case, the most consequential on the docket this term, which gave President Trump a major win by limiting the power of district judges to block his actions.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the main dissent for the left flank of the high court, which Jackson joined.
But Jackson also wrote a concurring dissent that featured a heavy fixation on the potential practical ramifications of the 6-3 decision rather than grounding her argument in legal theory.
"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 dramatically fretted at one point.
"Quite unlike a rule-of-kings governing system, in a rule of law regime, nearly '[e]very act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law,'" Jackson wrote elsewhere. "At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot."
Jackson even went so far as to dismiss the question of whether universal injunctions were provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as "legalese" that "obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?"
Barrett's response in her opinion was almost mocking: "Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring 'legalese,' [Jackson] seeks to answer 'a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?'
"In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'" Barrett continued.
"That goes for judges too."
While Barrett, 53, gave lukewarm praise to Sotomayor, 71, for focusing her dissent on "conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity," she rounded on Jackson, 54, for adopting "a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.
"Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," Barrett wrote.
Meanwhile, Jackson opted not to conclude her opinion with the common phrases "I dissent" or "respectfully, I dissent" in an apparent sign of her fury at her colleagues' ruling.
"It's not something that we see every day," Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told The Post about Barrett's jabs, though Bird stressed that Barrett confined her critique to legal differences rather than personal attacks.
Other commentators were more scathing.
"Holy s—, this is about as brutal as I've ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own," attorney Kostas Moros wrote on X in response to Barrett's "imperial Judiciary" quote. "Translated: 'you are so stupid that you aren't even worth responding to.'"
"The FACT that six Justices were OK with signing onto an opinion where Justice Barrett took a personal shot at Justice Jackson is a VERY STRONG indication that Jackson has alienated her colleagues and there is a growing lack of respect for her work," mused X user Shipwreckedcrew, whose profile describes him as a former federal prosecutor.
"Justices circulate Memos among with their legal views on certain cases in order to bring others around to their thinking. Given what she has written in her dissent, imagine the memos that Jackson must have sent around in this case."
Three lower courts had stayed Trump's Jan. 20 executive order narrowing the definition of birthright citizenship — which the 14th Amendment states confers automatic naturalization on all individuals born in the US — after concluding the executive action was likely unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's order — only the power courts had to enjoin it.
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
Jackson finally got her comeuppance.
And, actually, Jackson is complaining 'bout the President telling the courts what their authority is, and no real discussion on immigration.
That is exactly right. The Court decided something that needed fixing now.
The issue of birthright citizenship has been sidelined until the October session.
How dare anyone, especially a woman of color, dare oppose our supreme leader!!!!!
What Jackson has shown is that she, really, doesn't have a firm understanding of how court decisions are made.
Put the link up before someone accuses you of plagiarism.
Sorry John - just following examples shown on NT.
Look it up - you'll find the cases in various law libraries.
Basically, she wrote an emotional dissent based on what she thought the law should be.
Jui soli has always been the position of the United States. The 14th amendment was needed because southern racists wanted to change that following the Civil War.
And there it should have ceased..It served its purpose.
The principle of birthright citizenship was not invented for the freed slaves, it already existed. The 14th amendment was needed because southern racists were trying to change that through Jim Crow laws.
That’s left wing jurisprudence in a nutshell. No need for the “legalese” (statutes, the constitution) that Jackson finds so irrelevant
You're starting to sound like my brother - "my mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts".
You confuse reality with wishes. Whatever has been written/passed by Congress does not go through a "let's let **)$% approve what we do (which is our job) because they think they can do it better".
Recommend you stay away from legal discussions - you are getting too many things confused with the realities.[✘]
Most of your comments make no sense. The 14th amendment was not created to carve out an exemption for freed slaves , it was created to prevent racists from subverting a principle of law that already existed.
The argument that the 14th amendment was only supposed to pertain to freed slaves holds no water.
You copied and pasted a long passage from the internet without attribution. That is considered plagiarism on Newstalkers as far as I know.
Just proved my point.
Of course you should be aware of that having practiced it so often.
LOL. I literally never copy and paste anything longer than a sentence without a link.
I think it was a simple oversight on your part and now you are doubling down.
WRONG. It was not originally spelled out in the US Constitution.
The 14th amendment was needed because southern racists wanted to change that following the Civil War.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The predecessors of today's democrats had zero power to change anything after the Civil war. The Fouteenth Amendment was adopted by congress following the Civil War to specifically protect the rights of native-born Black Americans who suddenly became free, just like 1st Warrior perfectly pointed out in Post 2. The Amendment has just enough ambiguity to have some wondering if it goes beyond those born to the newly freed slaves. The key phrase is: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction," That would seem to exclude migrants rushing into the country to have an anchor baby born here.
The Supreme Court needs to decide that once and for all. I don't care much which way they go. It needs clarification.
As to what the court did decide: The district judges created by congress without any guidelines on their authority, now have a very clear line as to where their authority ends and that desperately needed to be settled.
The 14th Amendment codified Jus Soli. The landmark Wong Kim Ark case established a precedent in 1898 that a child born in the USA to parents who were not citizens (and not foreign diplomats) is a citizen of the United States by being born here (Jus Soli).
The SCotUS can overturn this longstanding precedent of over 127 years, but that does not change the fact that this is the standing interpretation.
Trump (or any other PotUS) has no authority to change this. Any change of interpretation must come from the SCotUS or by an Amendment to the CotUS.
You dont understand the material.
Birthright citizenship is not something that was created simply to apply to the children of freed slaves. End of story.
Why do you think most legal experts say the SC will not overturn birthright citizenship.
Sorry - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
Try a little more accuracy - makes for better reading.
You, very obviously, don't - probably need to recommend you stay out of legal discussions.
Adding detail does not change the meaning of the ruling. And your snarky crap does not help your argument.
Here is an example of making an argument without making things personal ☞
On Wong Kim Ark case we have this clear language :
Next, we have 8 U.S. Code § 1401 wherein Congress affirmed Jus Soli. Congress enumerated the details yet nowhere do they put in any exceptions for illegal immigrants :
Finally, ChatGPT offers numerous cases which have affirmed the precedent and 8 U.S. Code § 1401:
To wit, Jus Soli is well-established in our CotUS and has been adjudicated and reaffirmed several times. To change this requires a precedent-breaking ruling by the SCotUS (which it did not do) or a constitutional amendment.
Trump's EO violates the CotUS.
False - notice that Native Americans were SPECIFICALLY noted as not part of the 14th.
Completely immaterial to the fact that the concept of jus soli, which is citizenship conferred by soil not blood, was already the practice in the US, and can be traced back to precolonial England. (Which interestingly enough is an application that was used to argue in favor of the 2nd amendment rights according to the Heller decision. )
WTF does a firearms court decision have to do with immigration - or, better yet, any of the topic of this thread???
JFC John - WTH???
Thread 2.4 was removed for massive meta. Knock it off. Only warning.
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
I feel bad for Jackson brown. She’s intellectually outgunned and has no business being on the court. Six justices signing onto acb’s nuking of Jackson shows how just how thin her antics are wearing.
ACB’s summary is a good lesson about wasting time with fools too. .
How did this activist make it through the confirmation process?
Check the squares - all that was needed - female - minority - attended Harvard - first elevated by Obama - nominated to SCOTUS by Biden.
Giving citizenship to a baby born on US soil with foreign parents might have been OK before this country became overcrowded but now it just makes problem of overpopulation worse.
Past time to end it
After the same court gave Trump who is a convicted felon total immunity as executive, essentially making him a king that is no longer bound by law. It's a travesty for Barrett to say "Everyone from the President on down is bound by the law" which is clearly a lie.
This President is not "bound" by the law if he REFUSES to follow courts decisions dragging every case to a Supreme Court knowing they will automatically give him a win.
I wonder where Baron Trump, (anchor baby), will be sent to?
How cute. You really don't know the SCOTUS rulings on this.
Guess not. Barron was born to an American father and immigrant/citizen mother. They seem to forget that one Barack Obama had much the same lineage only reversing the citizen non-citizen roles. Father, Kenyan. Mother, US citizen.
As usual, memories get short.
While sort memories are a problem, this is also a selective memory thing. Hypocrites usually pull this nonsense then cry when called out.