The Supreme Court delivered a pivotal ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., where Justice Amy Coney Barrett sharply criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. The 6-3 decision, a major victory for the then-President Donald Trump, significantly narrows the ability of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions on presidential actions.
The case, decided on June 27, 2025, centers on the extent of federal district courts' authority to issue injunctions with nationwide reach, beyond the immediate parties involved in the litigation. The Court's decision limits such injunctions, a tool increasingly used in recent years to swiftly halt executive actions.
Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, underscored the constitutional limits of broad judicial power. She directly addressed Justice Jackson's arguments, stating, "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's pointed language exemplified the tension between the justices, with her asserting that Justice Jackson's approach favored "an imperial Judiciary" over constitutional constraints on executive power.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the primary dissent, joined by Jackson and Justice Elena Kagan. However, it was Jackson's separate dissent that drew significant attention. She cautioned against a future where "executive power will become completely uncontainable," leading to the demise of the constitutional Republic. Jackson critiqued the majority for what she saw as an overemphasis on procedural aspects at the expense of broader constitutional concerns.
The ruling has garnered widespread commentary, with legal experts remarking on the unusual directness of the justices' exchanges. Attorney Kostas Moros noted the rare intensity of the majority's rebuke, while others expressed surprise at Barrett's strong critique of Jackson. The case did not address the constitutionality of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, focusing instead on the procedural question of judicial authority to issue sweeping injunctions.
This decision is poised to reshape the legal landscape, compelling plaintiffs to pursue more narrowly defined relief and potentially curtailing judicial review of extensive executive actions. Critics worry that this could erode checks on presidential authority, while supporters argue it reinforces necessary constitutional boundaries.
Jackson's departure from the traditional closing of dissenting opinions, omitting "I dissent," underscored the depth of her disagreement. The discourse reflects a court deeply divided on issues of judicial and executive power, setting a precedent for the future of legal challenges against federal policy.
