Stephen Miller to Newsmax: Injunction Ruling Thrashed Jackson’s Dissent

By Michael Katz    |   Friday, 27 June 2025 09:12 PM EDT

Comment|

Print|

A  A

https://instaread.co/player?article=stephen-miller-to-newsmax-injunction-ruling-thrashed-jacksons-dissent&publication=newsmax&article_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsmax.com%2Fnewsmax-tv%2Fstephen-miller-newsmax-supreme-court%2F2025%2F06%2F27%2Fid%2F1216813&pay_wall=false&version=1751158800000

The Supreme Court’s majority ruling Friday that repudiated the concept of universal or nationwide injunctions was remarkable for its takedown of the dissenting opinion, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told Newsmax.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, had pointed words for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, in which Jackson wrote that nationwide injunctions should be permissible because the courts should not allow the president to violate the Constitution.

“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” Barrett wrote. “Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query,’ she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.

“Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson’s position is difficult to pin down. … 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.”

Miller told “Rob Schmitt Tonight” that Barrett’s rebuke was a “thrashing.”

“I’ve never seen in my life an example of a majority holding that so thoroughly eviscerates a single justice of the Supreme Court in this case, Ketanji Brown Jackson,” Miller said. “In other words, they didn’t really disagree with her ruling or, sorry, her dissent, but they so vociferously condemned the lack of intellectual rigor and legal analysis in her dissent.

“So, for people who’ve read Supreme Court opinions, it was a thrashing. They humiliated Ketanji Brown Jackson in just completely dismantling her so-called opinion.”

Miller praised Friday’s ruling, saying it “was an incredibly important day for democracy with this 6-3 ruling striking down the practice of district court nationwide injunctions.”

But he Supreme Court did not weigh in on birthright citizenship, in which Democrats believe anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their immigration status, becomes a U.S. citizen, germane to the 14th Amendment.

The dispute is over the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War that states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“The question about birthright citizenship is continuing through the courts, and we expect to win that case as well, convincingly and categorically, because the question is so clear legally,” Miller said. “As an example, the United Nations, that building [in New York] is filled with diplomats from all over the world, from countries near and far. If they have a child while they are here in this country, that child is not an automatic citizen … because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws because they are a foreign citizen.

“Their allegiance is to a foreign country; their jurisdiction is a foreign country. So, the idea that we would apply this to illegal aliens, a class of people who Congress has excluded by law from entry to the nation, is preposterous, in fact, is one of the gravest affronts to American sovereignty. And we expect to prevail and prevail completely.”