U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett targeted liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a recent opinion that Barrett wrote. 

This, according to Fox News, took place in the recent case in which the Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump a win on the issue of universal injunctions.

Jackson wrote a dissent in the case, and it was this dissent that Barrett took issue with. Take a look:

Amy Coney Barrett’s full evisceration of Ketanji Brown Jackson is below. She’s basically asking how KBJ passed the bar. pic.twitter.com/skHbUpDSbL

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 27, 2025

'At odds with more than two centuries of...'

In the court's opinion, Barrett argued that Jackson was "at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself."

Barrett wrote:

We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

Barrett, though, did not stop there.

She went on to write:

Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese,’ [Jackson] seeks to answer ‘a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law? In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.

Barrett added, "Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law. That goes for judges too."

Yikes!

It is not everyday that you see saw a brutal takedown of one Supreme Court justice by another. However, it is likely that we are seeing it here because this was such a big case (and because Jackson's dissent was nonsensical).

Fox reports:

The Supreme Court’s decision came as part of an emergency request from the Trump administration asking the high court to put an end to judges issuing universal injunctions, including those that judges have placed on President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

The outlet goes on to explain, "Barrett . . . wrote that when judges issue injunctions to block policies, like those the Trump administration is trying to implement, they cannot apply the injunction to more than the parties involved in the case."

Suffice it to say that this is a big win for the Trump administration.

The president celebrated accordingly.