How did Ketanji Brown Jackson respond to the Supreme Court’s decision about nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA?

In Trump v. CASA, Inc., et al. (2025), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a strongly worded dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision to stay nationwide preliminary injunctions that had blocked an executive order ending birthright citizenship.1

While the Court’s conservative majority did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, it determined that federal courts lack the authority to issue injunctions broader than what is necessary to provide relief to specific plaintiffs with standing.12

In her dissent, Justice Jackson argued that this decision posed a grave threat to the rule of law in the United States. She contended that by restricting the ability of courts to check executive actions, the ruling would allow "executive lawlessness" to flourish. Jackson warned that if the executive branch is permitted to act unlawfully in certain circumstances, executive power will eventually become "completely uncontainable," potentially leading to the collapse of the American constitutional republic.1