The Supreme Court has delivered a major win for President Donald J. Trump — and a blistering reality check for judicial activists — in its long-awaited ruling on nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the Trump administration, reining in the out-of-control lower courts that have been issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions to sabotage the President’s lawful executive actions since the start of his second term.

But while the ruling itself marks a significant constitutional course correction, it’s the majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that’s drawing widespread attention — and praise — for its devastating takedown of leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett didn’t mince words. She exposed Jackson’s legal reasoning as both reckless and ignorant of centuries of judicial precedent.

“Justice Jackson appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands ‘universal adherence,’ at least where the Executive is concerned,” Barrett wrote in her majority opinion.

And then came the constitutional knockout:

“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.”

In one of the most pointed rebukes of a sitting justice in recent memory, Barrett slammed Jackson for her blatant double standard:

“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Barrett’s precision legal strike stunned the Beltway and energized constitutional conservatives, many of whom have long worried about Jackson’s activist tendencies and President Biden’s ideological approach to judicial appointments.

Deputy Assistant to the President and senior policy strategist May Mailman put it plainly:

“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.”

Fox News host Laura Ingraham called Barrett’s opinion a “brutal takedown.”
Political analyst Ford O’Connell described it as “the stuff of legends.”

The official ruling delivered a strong rebuke to the weaponized judiciary, stating:

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

Jackson’s dissent revealed not just an ideological blind spot but a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional boundaries, and Barrett made sure the American people saw it.

It’s no secret that Jackson — selected by former President Joe Biden in a blatant DEI-driven pick — has routinely operated well outside the bounds of judicial restraint. Her performance in this case only confirms how dangerous it would be to hand Democrats another Supreme Court nomination.

Let this ruling be a reminder of how important judicial nominations are — and how fortunate America is to have President Trump leading the fight for constitutional sanity.

Justice Barrett, who has at times disappointed conservatives with moderate rulings, delivered in full force this time. And with a solid 6–3 majority, the Constitution still has a fighting chance.