A Gavel in the Dark: When Power Changes Hands Quietly
Sen. Kennedy Hails Supreme Court Decision, Takes Aim at Justice Jackson’s Dissent
In a forceful public reaction, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy lauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curbed the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and didn’t mince words about the dissent penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
What the Court Ruled
Late last week, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision limiting the ability of individual district courts to issue sweeping injunctions that block executive actions nationwide—moves that have often been used to halt policies across all states even when litigation is limited to specific parties. The majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that such broad remedies exceed what the Constitution and statutes allow, and that courts should only block enforcement as to the parties in a given case or within the court’s jurisdiction.
The decision is expected to reshape how federal courts can act against executive actions, especially those with regulatory or policy consequences across the country.
Kennedy: A Long-Awaited Reaffirmation of Judicial Limits
Appearing on Faulkner Focus (Fox News), Senator Kennedy declared the ruling a major victory for rule-of-law principles.
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” Kennedy told host Harris Faulkner. “There’s no basis in statute, no basis in precedent, and no basis in English common law. Judges who just didn’t like what Congress or a president did simply invented them.”
The senator framed the decision as correcting judicial overreach: a rollback of a tool he said courts had overused when disagreeing with lawmakers or presidents.
Kennedy went on to say, “Good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court.” He characterized the ruling as restoring balance among the branches of government, preventing courts from unilaterally halting entire policy programs.
“Mad as a Bag of Cats”: Kennedy on Jackson’s Dissent
Kennedy reserved especially strong language for Justice Jackson’s dissent. He asserted that the tone, intensity, and breadth of her opposition underscore how consequential the majority opinion is.
“You can tell how extensive and serious the ruling is just by reading her dissent. She’s mad as a bag of cats—and that’s probably a good sign for the American people,” Kennedy said.
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, warned that tightening the scope of injunctions risks undercutting the ability of courts to protect fundamental rights against harmful executive policies. Her dissent argued that the majority’s restrictions would limit access to immediate relief in cases with national impact.
Jackson’s dissent, Kennedy implied, reflected overreaction from those who rely on nationwide injunctions to check executive actions.
Kennedy Clarifies What the Ruling Did — and Did Not Do
During the interview, Kennedy noted that the decision did not resolve all controversial executive actions—specifically, the question of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which has become a flashpoint in disputes over immigration policy. He emphasized that the Court was not ruling on particular programs or orders, but rather on the authority of courts to enjoin them broadly.
“This does not decide birthright citizenship. What it does is strike down what courts have done—when they’ve issued injunctions across the whole land,” Kennedy said.
“You can’t just stop an entire branch of government because you don’t like their policy.”
He also accused both parties of misusing universal injunctions in past years, but asserted that Democrats had relied on the tactic more heavily.
The Majority Rationale and Legal Landscape
In its majority opinion, the Court emphasized that nationwide injunctions, as historically deployed, extend beyond the traditional role of federal courts. The justices argued that when a court blocks enforcement for the entire country, even in states and regions over which that court lacks direct jurisdiction, it upends the principle that each court may adjudicate only controversies directly before it.
Barrett’s majority opinion stressed that judicial authority should be bounded and that the power to grant relief should reflect the parties before the court—not serve as a sweeping veto on policy for all citizens.
Legal observers suggest the ruling will curb the capacity of judges to issue sweeping holds on executive initiatives, pushing challenges to be more focused and localized.
Impact, Dissent, and Forward Paths
Kennedy’s praise and sharp commentary underscore how politically charged the ruling is. To those who champion robust judicial oversight, the decision threatens to limit courts’ ability to act quickly in response to federal actions that may harm broad populations.
From Jackson’s perspective, the majority’s approach may leave vulnerable parties waiting for redress until broader harms are already felt. Her dissent warns that narrowing injunction power could foreclose judicial protection in fast-moving cases with national implications.
As the legal community digests the decision, new litigation strategies will likely emerge. Plaintiffs and attorneys may attempt to structure challenges to maximize local relief or target enforcement in more narrowly defined terms. Meanwhile, executive agencies may proceed with greater confidence that challenges will have a harder time obtaining immediate nationwide blocks.
Sen. Kennedy’s reaction—his rhetorical flourish and focus on Jackson’s dissent—adds another layer of spectacle to a ruling that already carries serious doctrinal shifts. Whether his framing or Jackson’s warning proves more prescient may become clearer in the years of cases to come.