I don’t know that I’ve ever read a Supreme Court Opinion where the 6-3 majority Justices go out of their way to craft and entire section of the Opinion excoriating a fellow Justice for essentially being very dumb and lazy.

But that’s what we just got today and it’s incredible!

Who knew Supreme Court Opinions could be this entertaining, but this one truly is.

Allow me to break it all down for you….

I actually had to pull up the Opinion for myself from the Supreme Court website because I couldn’t believe some of the clips I was seeing being shared around were real.  It’s THAT bad for Jackson.

Like this:

Amy Coney Barrett’s full evisceration of Ketanji Brown Jackson is below. She’s basically asking how KBJ passed the bar. pic.twitter.com/skHbUpDSbL

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 27, 2025

And this:

HAHA Justice Amy Coney Barrett implied Ketanji Brown Jackson is too DEI to read “legalese” pic.twitter.com/jfMxpktiy6

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) June 27, 2025

But let me give you the full thing because it’s an incredible sight to behold.

First, you can find and read the Opinion for yourself right here if you like:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_new_5426.pdf

But here’s the key part, starting in Section “C”.  They literally created an entire section just to spend 4 pages calling Ketanji Brown Jackson dumb and lazy:

I ran cleaned that up a bit removing the footnotes and putting it in plain text format below.

I’ve bolded the parts I find absolutely stunning and added my own comments in red.

Folks, we literally have (at least) 6 people on the Supreme Court who are sending as loud a message as they can that this woman is not qualified to be on this Court.

Heck she’s probably not qualified to even teach a law school class at some low-level law school, it’s that bad.

Take a look:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. 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,” [translation: legal work is so boring and confusing and super hard bro!] post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), 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 courts is to “order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.” [“Order everyone” is such a ghetto phrase to use, I think Barrett is shining a light on even the ghetto language Jackson uses] Post, at 2; see also post, at 10 (“[T]he function of the courts—both in theory and in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law requires in . . . suits for the benefit of all who are protected by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured private parties”); see also post, at 11, n. 3, 15. And, she warns, if courts lack the power to “require the Executive to adhere to law universally,” post, at 15, courts will leave a “gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,” post, at 12.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rhetoric aside, JUSTICE JACKSON’s position is difficult to pin down. [The other Justices can’t even understand her argument so they take guesses at what it might be. Unreal.] She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., post, at 3, 10–12, 16–18. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions. See, e.g., Frost, 93 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 1069 (“Nationwide injunctions come with significant costs and should never be the default remedy in cases challenging federal executive action”).

As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned. Post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. But see Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 294 (2023) (“It is a federal court’s judgment, not its opinion, that remedies an injury”).

Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere.

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. [Her argument is so bad it’s basically against our entire legal corpus of historic rulings and the Constitution itself! Someone call 911, that’s a homicide!] We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). [Citing Marbury v. Madison is pretty hilarious, one of the most basic and oldest cases in all of Constitutional law — citing this implies Jackson doesn’t even know the most basic of the basics.]

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.

JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” [She’s too dumb and lazy to read the legalese, which LITERALLY is this entire job.] 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 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.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.

As I said, someone call 911 because there has been a homicide….

That is without a doubt the biggest legal beatdown I have ever seen from 6 sitting Supreme Court Justices against one of their sitting “peers”.

And yes, I put “peers” in massive air quotes.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.

Source link