Political Commentary
If you were looking for a clear sign that the Supreme Court’s latest ruling struck a nerve on the Left, you didn’t need to scan cable news panels or activist social media feeds. You just had to read Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent.
And according to Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), that reaction alone is proof the Court got it right.
Speaking on The Faulkner Focus Friday evening, Kennedy reacted enthusiastically to the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision curbing the use of so-called “universal injunctions”—a judicial invention that has allowed single district judges to freeze executive actions nationwide, often on ideological grounds.
“The Supreme Court has turned universal injunctions into fish food,” Kennedy said bluntly. “As well it should have.”
That ruling, which arose in the context of challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive orders—most notably his birthright citizenship order—may end up being one of the most consequential judicial decisions of the decade. And it has Democrats furious.
What the Court Actually Did (And Didn’t Do)
Despite breathless headlines from the Left, the Supreme Court did not rule directly on birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the justices addressed a more fundamental constitutional question: Do federal judges have the authority to issue universal injunctions that bind the entire country?
For years, activist judges have answered that question for themselves—and the answer was yes, apparently whenever they disliked a president’s policies.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
By limiting injunctions to the parties before the court, the majority effectively dismantled a favorite tool of the progressive legal movement. Under the old system, one district judge in California, Hawaii, or New York could block a policy nationwide, even before higher courts weighed in.
“There’s no basis in statute. There’s no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There is no basis in English common law for universal injunctions,” Kennedy said. “Judges who just dislike what Congress and a president—any president—has done, just made them up.”
That’s not hyperbole. Even liberal legal scholars have admitted universal injunctions are a modern invention, exploding in use only in the last decade—coinciding neatly with the rise of conservative administrations.
Justice Jackson’s Dissent: The Real Tell
Kennedy zeroed in on Justice Jackson’s dissent, which ran long, emotional, and unmistakably ideological.
“It’s a very extensive ruling,” Kennedy noted. “You can tell it from Justice Jackson’s dissent. She’s mad as a bag of cats—and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
That remark went viral, not because it was shocking—Kennedy is known for his folksy bluntness—but because it captured what many Americans were already thinking. Jackson’s dissent did not read like a neutral judicial disagreement. It read like a political manifesto.
Rather than grounding her objections in historical practice or constitutional text, Jackson framed the ruling as a threat to democracy itself—a familiar refrain whenever the Left loses in court.
Her dissent echoed the argument that judges must retain sweeping power to “check” elected branches, even if that means substituting their preferences for those of Congress and the president.
In other words: trust the judges, not the voters.
Why Universal Injunctions Were a Problem
Universal injunctions were never meant to exist in a system of separated powers. Traditionally, courts resolved disputes between specific parties. If a policy was unconstitutional, higher courts would say so—after proper review.
But in recent years, that process has been short-circuited.
Under universal injunctions, judges have:
• Blocked immigration enforcement nationwide
• Frozen regulatory reforms across all states
• Halted executive orders before implementation
• Effectively legislated from the bench
And they’ve done it fast—often within hours of a lawsuit being filed.
This turned district courts into shadow legislatures, accountable to no one and insulated from electoral consequences.
As Kennedy put it, “If they disagree, I’m sorry. Fill out a hurt feelings report. Buy a comfort rock.”
That line wasn’t just a joke. It was a reminder: disagreement does not equal authority.
Why Democrats Are Panicking
The Left’s fury over this ruling isn’t about legal nuance. It’s about power.
Universal injunctions were a strategic weapon—one that allowed Democrats to achieve through courts what they couldn’t win through elections. When voters rejected progressive policies, sympathetic judges stepped in.
Now that pipeline is drying up.
Without universal injunctions:
• Executive orders can go into effect while cases proceed
• Conflicting rulings can be resolved by appellate courts
• The Supreme Court—not district judges—becomes the final arbiter
That restores constitutional order. And for Democrats accustomed to governing through litigation, it’s a disaster.
This is why Jackson’s dissent mattered so much. It revealed how deeply embedded this judicial activism had become—and how personal its loss feels to those who benefited from it.
Trump, the Court, and the Bigger Picture
While the ruling stemmed from challenges to Trump-era policies, its implications go far beyond any one president.
Ironically, it may end up strengthening future Democratic presidents as well—by preventing conservative judges from blocking left-wing policies nationwide.
But that’s not how Democrats see it. They see a Court slipping beyond their control.
Trump, for his part, celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “massive victory for the Constitution.” And for once, the hyperbole may be justified.
This decision reasserts a basic principle that has been eroded for years: judges interpret the law—they do not run the country.
Kennedy’s Final Word—and Why It Resonated
Sen. Kennedy’s remarks struck a chord because they cut through legal jargon and spoke plainly to public frustration.
Americans have watched unelected judges override election outcomes, freeze policies they voted for, and lecture them about democracy—while behaving in profoundly undemocratic ways.
When Kennedy said “good riddance,” he wasn’t just talking about injunctions. He was talking about an era of judicial arrogance.
The Supreme Court didn’t silence dissent. It restored balance.
And if that leaves some justices “mad as a bag of cats,” as Kennedy put it, so be it.
As the senator summed it up: “I’m proud of the Supreme Court.”
For millions of Americans who want judges to follow the law—not rewrite it—that sentiment is long overdue.
