Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett , a Donald Trump appointee once hailed as a reliable conservative voice, has again broken ranks with her right-wing colleagues, this time in a case tied to the president’s controversial push to end birthright citizenship .
During oral arguments on nationwide injunctions, Barrett challenged Trump’s own solicitor general, Dean John Sauer, after he gave a vague response to liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
“Sir, are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett asked pointedly, stepping in after Sauer appeared to dismiss Kagan’s concerns over how an executive order ending birthright citizenship might take effect if judicial checks were weakened.
The case itself does not directly challenge the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment, but focuses instead on whether district courts can block executive orders nationwide. Trump's legal team argued that such injunctions unfairly prevent the president from executing immigration policy, including a sweeping order signed at the start of his second term aimed at denying citizenship to children born to undocumented migrants.
Justice Kagan, voicing concern over how the order would be assessed if allowed to proceed, remarked, “That does not fill me with great confidence... how else are we going to get to the right result here, which is on my assumption that the EO is illegal?”
Sauer’s blunt reply, “That would be a profoundly wrong result,” was met with scepticism from the bench, and Barrett’s defence of Kagan highlighted a growing pattern of divergence from her conservative peers.
Once considered a Trump-era judicial triumph, Barrett has increasingly frustrated MAGA loyalists. She recently sided with liberal justices in upholding foreign aid allocations, opposing efforts to revive the non-delegation doctrine, and challenging legal attacks on the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost preventive services. In April, she was the lone conservative to reject the administration’s attempt to deport alleged gang members using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
These moves have sparked backlash among Trump supporters. Influencer Mike Cernovich, a known MAGA ally, dismissed her as a “DEI pick” in March, accusing Trump of making a tokenistic appointment. “She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” he posted.
Barrett’s legal background is far from radical. After clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia, she served as a Notre Dame law professor and joined the Seventh Circuit in 2017. She was elevated by Trump to the Supreme Court in 2020 following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.
During oral arguments on nationwide injunctions, Barrett challenged Trump’s own solicitor general, Dean John Sauer, after he gave a vague response to liberal Justice Elena Kagan.
“Sir, are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett asked pointedly, stepping in after Sauer appeared to dismiss Kagan’s concerns over how an executive order ending birthright citizenship might take effect if judicial checks were weakened.
The case itself does not directly challenge the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment, but focuses instead on whether district courts can block executive orders nationwide. Trump's legal team argued that such injunctions unfairly prevent the president from executing immigration policy, including a sweeping order signed at the start of his second term aimed at denying citizenship to children born to undocumented migrants.
Justice Kagan, voicing concern over how the order would be assessed if allowed to proceed, remarked, “That does not fill me with great confidence... how else are we going to get to the right result here, which is on my assumption that the EO is illegal?”
Sauer’s blunt reply, “That would be a profoundly wrong result,” was met with scepticism from the bench, and Barrett’s defence of Kagan highlighted a growing pattern of divergence from her conservative peers.
Once considered a Trump-era judicial triumph, Barrett has increasingly frustrated MAGA loyalists. She recently sided with liberal justices in upholding foreign aid allocations, opposing efforts to revive the non-delegation doctrine, and challenging legal attacks on the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost preventive services. In April, she was the lone conservative to reject the administration’s attempt to deport alleged gang members using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
These moves have sparked backlash among Trump supporters. Influencer Mike Cernovich, a known MAGA ally, dismissed her as a “DEI pick” in March, accusing Trump of making a tokenistic appointment. “She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” he posted.
Barrett’s legal background is far from radical. After clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia, she served as a Notre Dame law professor and joined the Seventh Circuit in 2017. She was elevated by Trump to the Supreme Court in 2020 following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.
You may also like
Bengal govt spent over Rs 200 crore on legal expenses to deny DA to state employees: Suvendu Adhikari
Wynne Evans launches Strictly legal war after 'forced to dance on broken foot'
Saffie Osborne 'unbelievably excited' at making US debut in £1.5m leg of Triple Crown
Eurovision's Graham Norton reveals 'raucous' game and Remember Monday's advantage
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat Demands End To Registrar's Role In Developer Selection, Proposes Key Amendments For Cooperative Housing Redevelopment
