“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
So Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concludes her excoriation of every other Supreme Court justice on the bench. Justice Sonia Sotomayor included. (RELATED: Judges Play Their Trump Card Against President — And SCOTUS, Too)
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay, or halt, of a California District Court injunction enjoining the federal government from enacting one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders. The order in question implements the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and directs government agencies towards certain reforms.
The lone voice of dissent, verbose as ever, was Justice Jackson.
BREAKING: Supreme Court lets Trump move forward with plans for large-scale reductions in the federal workforce.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the only dissent. pic.twitter.com/bDEFLhIG8z
— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) July 8, 2025
Jackson takes offense to what she perceives as sweeping federal reform absent explicit congressional authorization. In typical Jackson fashion, she reserves plenty of barbs for her colleagues.
Writing of the District Court’s injunction, Jackson whines, “but that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”
I only wish Jackson would occasionally break from her consummate professionalism and tell us what she really thinks.
“From its lofty perch far from the facts or the evidence, this Court lacks the capacity to fully evaluate, much less responsibly override, reasoned lower court factfinding about what this challenged executive action actually entails,” she continues. “So it should have left well enough alone.”
The court’s decision means, according to Jackson, allowing “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government to continue apace, causing irreparable harm before courts can determine whether the President has the authority to engage in the actions he proposes.”
SCOTUS grants a stay of the preliminary injunction from Judge Susan Illston, which was denied by the 9th Circuit 2-1.
8-1 decision with Sotomayor actually concurring with the majority as she seeks to separate herself from her seemingly more deranged colleague Justice Jackson. https://t.co/b2ivmxG3r1 pic.twitter.com/PZuooMLeUC
— Chris (@chriswithans) July 8, 2025
Jackson further scorns the “problematic” possibilities of the majority’s decision. She accuses her fellow justices of “disregard for the District Court’s factfinding … it is all the more puzzling, and ultimately disheartening, given the extraordinary risk of harm that today’s ruling immediately unleashes.” (RELATED: Obama-Appointed Judge Proves SCOTUS Right … By Trampling All Over Their Ruling)
If that wasn’t enough, the very concept of democracy could be on the line.
“Consider the harms to democracy, too,” Jackson begs the reader.
Wow. If the founding fathers had known democracy was fragile enough to be broken by an 8-1 SCOTUS ruling, they might’ve reconsidered the whole venture.
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03
Read the full article here
