Sen. Kennedy Applauds Supreme Court Ruling, Criticizes Justice Jackson’s Dissent
In a passionate response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the legality of universal injunctions, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) expressed strong support for the 6–3 ruling—suggesting it was a victory for constitutional balance and judicial restraint.
The ruling, which struck down broad lower court injunctions blocking executive actions—including an order related to birthright citizenship—has stirred political and legal debate.
Appearing on Fox News, Kennedy praised the Court for eliminating what he called “judicial overreach” in the form of universal injunctions.
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” Kennedy stated.
“There’s no basis in statute, Supreme Court precedent, or even English common law.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing the majority opinion, emphasized that federal courts are not meant to act as general overseers of the Executive Branch, noting that such broad injunctions exceed the scope of judicial power granted by Congress.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies,” Barrett wrote, directly countering arguments presented in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.
Jackson, who dissented along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, criticized the majority’s stance, warning that limiting judicial power in this way could lead to unchecked executive authority.
Her impassioned dissent has drawn attention across media platforms, prompting Kennedy to quip that she was “mad as a bag of cats.”
Kennedy argued that both political parties have misused universal injunctions in the past, though he claimed Democrats were the more frequent offenders. “It’s illegal,” he said.
“There’s no basis for it in law. Federal judges just made up this concept.”
Justice Barrett didn’t hold back in her critique of Jackson’s logic, stating that the dissent “embraces an imperial Judiciary” while opposing what Jackson called an “imperial Executive.”
“Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,” Barrett concluded, turning Jackson’s own words back on the dissent.
With this decision, the Supreme Court has clarified that while judicial oversight is essential, it must remain within the constitutional boundaries set by Congress.
For now, the Court has signaled a definitive step back from sweeping judicial interventions that halt executive actions on a nationwide scale.
SHARE this important update with friends and family who care about the future of the Constitution and the balance of powers.
