In a sharply worded majority opinion issued in Garland v. C.A.S.A. de Maryland, Justice Amy Coney Barrett reportedly offered a direct critique of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, drawing attention to a broader divide on the Supreme Court over the limits of judicial authority and constitutional interpretation.
The case addressed whether a lower court overstepped its bounds in issuing a broad injunction against a Trump-era immigration rule. But much of the spotlight fell on the debate between two of the Court’s most high-profile justices.
Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett argued that the courts must adhere strictly to the limits Congress has placed on their authority, rebuking what she described as Justice Jackson’s preference for an expansive and unanchored judicial role.
“Justice Jackson chooses a startling line of attack,” Barrett wrote, accusing her colleague of bypassing statutory text in favor of a broader, more discretionary judicial philosophy.
Barrett rejected Jackson’s characterization of statutory limits as “mind-numbingly technical,” insisting that such boundaries are essential to maintaining the separation of powers.
“There is nothing mind-numbing about respecting the lines drawn by Congress,” she wrote, charging that Jackson’s approach effectively endorsed “an imperial Judiciary.”
Justice Jackson, writing in dissent and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the Court was undermining its responsibility to act as a check on executive power.
She contended that courts must retain the ability to issue broad relief when policies affect large groups of people nationwide.
Barrett, however, countered that Jackson’s view disregarded precedent and encouraged judicial overreach.
Her opinion emphasized that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law within the parameters set by Congress — not to reframe those laws based on perceived fairness or urgency.
The legal clash underscored a deeper philosophical split within the Court. On one side, the conservative majority reinforced a textualist vision of the judiciary that resists sweeping interventions and prioritizes legislative intent.
On the other, the liberal justices continue to argue for a judiciary more willing to act decisively in the face of executive actions they believe infringe on individual rights.
Though the case may appear procedural on the surface, it offered a vivid example of the ideological tensions shaping the current Court.
The exchange between Barrett and Jackson was not just about legal mechanics — it was a debate over the very nature of judicial power in a polarized era.
[READ MORE: Supreme Court Reins In Lower Courts’ Use of Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump Policies]
