The dissenting argument by US Supreme Court's justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the birthright citizenship case is "at odds" with the United States Constitution, according to justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority ruling in favour of curtailing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump's executive order, in what was a major win for the president.
"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," Barrett wrote in her order, according to Fox News.
The conservative judge, a Trump appointee, was referring to Jackson's order in which the latter, who was appointed under the previous Joe Biden administration, wrote that nationwide injunctions against the birthright executive order should be permissible or else the courts would be allowing the president to "violate the Constitution."
This argument, Barrett noted, was not based on any existing legal doctrine.
"Such a vision of the judicial role would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," she stated.
The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority to restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for the controversial order to be enforced in the 28 states which had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states.
Lower courts will now have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the ruling.
Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
"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," Barrett wrote in her order, according to Fox News.
The conservative judge, a Trump appointee, was referring to Jackson's order in which the latter, who was appointed under the previous Joe Biden administration, wrote that nationwide injunctions against the birthright executive order should be permissible or else the courts would be allowing the president to "violate the Constitution."
This argument, Barrett noted, was not based on any existing legal doctrine.
"Such a vision of the judicial role would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush," she stated.
The Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority to restrict the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for the controversial order to be enforced in the 28 states which had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states.
Lower courts will now have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the ruling.
Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
You may also like
Efforts on to form govt in Manipur at the earliest: Former CM
Religious sites in Mumbai now 'loudspeaker-free', says police chief
Dick and Angel Strawbridge inundated with support as they share emotional announcement
Glastonbury stage shut down ahead of Kneecap's performance
Uttarakhand BJP to get new president by July 1
