The Supreme Court’s Freedom Court issued a disastrous warning on Friday about the majority’s decision to curb lower court judges.
Judge Sonia Sotomayar, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed in cases where it is likely that they do not have the authority to issue national injunctions, considering President Donald Trump’s executive order, which was the majority held federal courts.
“The rule of law is not this country or anything else,” writes Sotomayor. “It is a lesson in our democracy and we will only endure if all branches are brave enough to fight for their survival.”
Kagan, who previously expressed skepticism about the nationwide injunction, signed an opponent of Sotomayor along with Jackson. (Related: Supreme Court terminates abuse of power for unelected district court judges)
Several liberal groups received Sotomayor’s advice to “request temporary injunctive relief” in a new effort to block the executive order, hours after “quickly request class action litigation and temporary injunctive relief.”
“Today, the threat is birthright citizenship,” writes Sotomayor. “Tomorrow, another administration may attempt to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering for worship. The majority believes that without the cumbersome class action lawsuit, the court cannot ban such clearly and illegal policies entirely unless it is affordable to fully bail out for formal political parties.”
wonderful. Judge Barrett goes directly to Judge Jackson that he cannot carry out the law. Jackson wants to communicate what to do to the entire administrative department and refuses to comply with constitutional restrictions. It’s incredibly dangerous and Barrett is right to call it. pic.twitter.com/lrmkqvegyz
– May Mailman (@maymailman) June 27, 2025
In her own opposition, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the majority decision was a “existential threat to the rule of law.”
“Perhaps the deterioration of our in-laws will happen anyway,” she wrote. “But this court’s conspiracy in creating a silly culture against the lower courts, their judgments, and the law (as they interpret) will certainly speed up the downfall of our governing bodies and allow for our collective end.”
Judge Amy Connie Barrett pointed out the words to Jackson, saying that his position would “make even the most enthusiastic defenders of judicial hegemony.”
“We don’t get too attached to Judge Jackson’s arguments that are conflicting with precedents of more than two centuries, not to mention the constitution itself,” Barrett wrote in a majority opinion. “We’ll only observe this: Judge Jackson accepts imperial judiciary and reduces the number of imperial leaders.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
