>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Kennedy blasted lower court judges for inventing the concept out of thin air simply because they disliked policy decisions from Congress or any president, Democrat or Republican. “Judges who just dislike what Congress and a president, any president, has done, just made them up. And good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court,” he declared.
Faulkner pointed out that the ruling could have ripple effects far beyond the birthright citizenship debate, potentially restraining judges from issuing nationwide orders that paralyze presidential actions. Kennedy couldn’t agree more—and was especially delighted at how furious the decision seemed to make progressive Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“It’s a very extensive ruling. You can tell it from Justice Jackson’s dissent,” Kennedy said. “She’s mad as a bag of cats, and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
Kennedy later elaborated that the ruling itself wasn’t about deciding the merits of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, but rather about judges wielding sweeping injunctions like a political sword. “You know, if they disagree, you know, I’m sorry. Fill out a hurt feelings report. Buy a comfort rock,” he quipped. “But they can’t just say, I disagree and I’m putting the entire action by another branch of government on hold because I don’t like it.”
He also called out both parties for misusing universal injunctions—but said Democrats were far more guilty of the abuse. “Both sides have abused it, and by it I mean universal injunctions. The Democrats more than the Republicans, but both sides have abused it. And it’s illegal. There’s no basis for it in law. And I’ve just been waiting for the Supreme Court to do this.”
Kennedy ridiculed judges who support universal injunctions as lacking basic legal knowledge. “I mean, anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept of universal injunctions,” he said.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett minced no words about the limits of judicial power, stating: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ … But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Barrett also targeted Justice Jackson’s dissent, saying: “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.”
Barrett didn’t stop there, adding a pointed reminder: “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.’ That goes for judges too.”
The ruling has quickly become a rallying cry for conservatives fed up with activist judges who seek to block presidential authority at every turn. Kennedy’s blunt celebration of the decision shows just how significant this victory is for those demanding the courts stick to deciding cases—rather than reshaping national policy from the bench.
For Kennedy, at least, there’s no love lost for the universal injunction: “Good riddance.”
