It was a rough week for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—not just because the Supreme Court handed President Donald J. Trump another decisive legal victory, but because even her fellow liberal justices are now publicly distancing themselves from her activist approach to the bench.

In an 8-1 decision Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order that had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with sweeping federal workforce reductions—part of President Trump’s second-term agenda to streamline Washington and restore constitutional limits on bureaucratic power.

The ruling came in the case American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, a challenge brought by government unions who claim the executive branch must go through the Merit Systems Protection Board before initiating reductions in force. However, that wasn’t the issue before the high court this week. The only question was whether President Trump’s executive order could be implemented while the legal challenge continues.

Only one justice dissented—unsurprisingly, Jackson. But what’s making headlines is how even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, long considered the most left-leaning member of the Court before Jackson’s appointment, felt the need to subtly correct her colleague’s dramatic overreach.

Sotomayor agreed that the president “cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” but reminded Jackson that this case wasn’t about that at all. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law,’” she wrote.

In plain English: Jackson missed the point entirely.

Sotomayor added, “The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law.” Translation: We’re deciding the case in front of us—not the one Jackson wishes she were deciding.

This isn’t the first time Jackson has wandered off the legal reservation. Just weeks ago, she authored a widely mocked dissent in Trump v. CASA, where the Court ruled 6-3 that district judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions. Jackson’s dissent was filled with legal grandstanding, bizarre rhetorical flourishes like “(wait for it),” and even references to what a Martian might think of the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority in that case, rebuked Jackson’s logic in one devastating paragraph: “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,” she wrote, citing Marbury v. Madison—the very case that established judicial review. Barrett went further, stating Jackson “decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

It’s one thing to be corrected by a conservative justice like Barrett. But when your own ideological allies are publicly rolling their eyes at your inability to focus on the question at hand, that’s a red flag.

In dissenting from Tuesday’s ruling, Jackson claimed President Trump had “sharply departed” from precedent and accused the Court of unleashing “all the harmful upheaval” that his executive order entails. But again, no actual reduction plans were even before the Court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the matter in the hands of the lower court for now, where Judge Susan Illston will evaluate whether the Trump administration’s reduction-in-force strategy complies with federal law. But with the highest court in the land affirming the administration’s legal footing, the message is clear: President Trump has every right to clean house in the federal bureaucracy.

And based on the current state of the judiciary, the house-cleaning can't come soon enough.