Amy Coney Barrett Torches Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ‘Extreme’ Opinion

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s efforts to limit national injunctions related to the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship, while legal proceedings on the matter are ongoing.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the court, which reached a 6-3 decision on the topic. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed dissent, with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson aligning with her viewpoint.

In her written opinion, Barrett stated: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ … However, federal courts do not possess general oversight over the Executive Branch; they adjudicate cases and controversies in accordance with the authority granted to them by Congress. When a court determines that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the appropriate response is not for the court to overstep its own authority.”

Barrett also criticized Jackson, a nominee from Biden’s administration, in her remarks.

“We will not elaborate on Justice Jackson’s argument, which contradicts over two centuries of established precedent, as well as the Constitution itself. We note this: Justice Jackson condemns an imperial Executive while simultaneously endorsing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett remarked.

“To put it differently, it is unnecessary to assess whether Congress has limited the Judiciary; the crucial point is how the Judiciary may impose constraints on the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would be wise to reflect on her own warning: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ This applies to judges as well,” she concluded.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered its decision regarding President Trump’s initial executive order that terminates birthright citizenship for the offspring of undocumented immigrants.

Trump has achieved a significant victory in the Birthright Citizenship Case. This victory is not based on the substantive issues, but rather on the question of whether a universal injunction is permissible. This development holds considerable importance for all cases that involve universal injunctions.

Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland clarified the implications of this ruling, stating, “The US Supreme Court permits Trump’s executive order that limits birthright citizenship to be enforced in certain regions of the country for the time being by restricting federal judges’ capacity to obstruct the president’s policies on a national scale.”

The Supreme Court conducted oral arguments in this matter in May, following the issuance of nationwide injunctions by three lower federal courts against the enforcement of the order.

In an executive order signed on Inauguration Day, Trump asserted that the provision of the 14th Amendment, which confers U.S. citizenship to children born on American territory, is applicable solely to those who have at least one parent who is a citizen or a permanent resident.

Should it be enacted, Trump’s policy would prevent citizenship at birth for approximately 255,000 infants born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, as reported by the Migration Policy Institute.

According to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” For more than a century, this provision has been interpreted to grant citizenship at birth to all individuals, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats, as noted by the WSJ.

However, supporters of Trump’s order contended that the historical context of the amendment was intended to provide citizenship to the children of former slaves, and that the provision has been misused by undocumented migrants who take advantage of it to establish a presence in the U.S. by having a child on American soil.

Trump’s executive order is founded on the premise that illegal immigrants are not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for the purposes of citizenship, implying that their offspring should not automatically receive citizenship at birth.

The White House contends that the citizenship clause was intended to counteract the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which determined that black individuals could not be citizens, while also not granting citizenship to foreigners lacking permanent legal residency.