When the Justices on the Supreme Court are at odds over major and often contentious issues, the verbal jabs and sometimes even insults that typically play out behind closed doors can make their way into written opinions — and in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not disappoint.

Barrett penned the majority opinion in the case that revolves around the idea of birthright citizenship and whether it should apply to the children of illegal aliens — but also tackles the issue of the universal injunctions, being handed down on a regular basis by cherry-picked judges in liberal courts in an attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from implementing his policies.

Trump cheered the win in a post to his Truth Social platform, saying, “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”

But in addition to laying out the Court’s opinion, Barrett took the opportunity to deliver a few precision strikes on the body’s newest justice, appointed by former President Joe Biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s remarks aimed at Jackson — who is perhaps best known for her inability to answer, on direct questioning, “what is a woman?” — paint a clear picture of a justice more interested in activism than a Constitutional reading and application of the law.

Barrett began by addressing the principal dissent — which was joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan, but written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and then panned Jackson’s by comparison.

JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free

“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett wrote. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses 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. In her telling, the fundamental role of the courts is to ‘order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop.'”

Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ

— May Mailman (@MayMailman) June 27, 2025

Still referencing Jackson’s dissent in the case, Barrett wrote, “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. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Amy Coney Barrett pulls no punches on judicial authoritarianism. Says Jackson is at odds with “the Constitution itself” and “ decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”

This is good ACB! pic.twitter.com/vPFGm078qd

— Megan Basham (@megbasham) June 27, 2025

“Observing the limits on judicial authority — including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 — is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law,” Barrett continued, adding, “JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ post, at 3, she 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?’ Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary 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.’ Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

More of Barrett nuking Jackson from orbit: pic.twitter.com/joKaIdtr0v

— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) June 27, 2025