Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was severely castigated and mocked by the 6-3 majority in the “birthright citizenship” (aka “universal injunction”) case for her Dissent which the normally staid Amy Coney Barrett (joined by five other Justices) termed “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” No other Justice, not even Sotomayor or Kagan, joined in KJB’s dissent, which contained numerous KBJ-isms: I’ll meet your “(wait for it)” and raise you a “full stop”.
KJB is carving out as niche among liberals as the “Great Dissenter” – but her dissents are so shallow that in the recent case in which the majority (8-1) stayed a district court order halting the mere planning for layoffs, Sotomayor had to spell out for KBJ why her solo dissent was legally unsound (emphasis added):
I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, at 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force “consistent with applicable law,” App. to Application for Stay 2a, and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance.
Hellbound and Down 