Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just might be the worst Supreme Court justice ever. 

This, at least, is the view of the Daily Caller, which bases its opinion, in part, the justice's recent dissent.

The dissent came in the recent immigration ruling, in which seven of the nine justices handed President Donald Trump a big win. Jackson, however, dissented, and she was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Before we get to the dissent, though, let's catch you up to speed.

Background

President Trump has been trying to revoke the temporary legal statuts that was granted by former President Joe Biden to about 500,000 illegal immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. But, judges have been trying to stop him.

In this case, the judge was U.S. District Judge Indiri Talwani of Massachusetts. Talwani ruled that Trump did not have the authority to take away that temporary legal status without going through each individual and making an independent determination.

This decision was quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, which essentially threw out Talwani's ruling.

NBC News reports:

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of more than 500,000 immigrants that was granted by the Biden administration, making them subject to deportation.

Trump celebrated, writing, "Let the deportations begin." But, not everyone is happy about the ruling.

Jackson and Sotomayor's dissent

The justice, in part, wrote:

The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.

Jackson went on to write, "Respondents now face two unbearable options. On the one hand, they could elect to leave the United States and, thereby, confront ‘dangers in their native countries,’ experience destructive ‘family separation,’ and possibly ‘forfei[t] any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their . . . claims,’ as the District Court found."

She continued, "On the other, they could remain in the United States after parole termination and risk imminent removal at the hands of Government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences."

Many have taken exception to this line of reasoning, but, as the Daily Caller notes, this is par for the course for Jackson.

The outlet writes:

As a rule of thumb, if Jackson’s unhappy, Americans have cause to celebrate. Her rulings always seem to consider the well-being of innocent American citizens last. Jackson’s heart bleeds for more than migrants.