Justice Amy Coney Barrett may have penned the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s recent case on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her dissent that landed in the spotlight — and not in a good way.

In her opinion for the 6-3 majority in Trump v. Casa, INC, Barrett jabbed at Jackson, suggesting that her dissent was “untethered” to any past precedent and stood in direct opposition to the Constitution.

“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 wrote.

JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free

But a closer look at Jackson’s dissent reveals that Barrett left out some of the strangest rabbit holes down which Jackson attempted to take the Court.

“A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution, then?'” Jackson wrote in her dissent.

“What, really, is this system for protecting people’s rights if it amounts to this—placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it? ‘Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!'”

Jackson was roundly mocked for adding a parenthetical “wait for it,” ostensibly to give her dissent a dramatic pause.

KBJ’s dissent actually includes the phrase…wait for it… pic.twitter.com/AGMu2KQULB

— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) June 28, 2025

“As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are . . . (wait for it) . . . the district courts.”

Throughout her dissent, Jackson — whom President Joe Biden named to the Court after pledging to nominate a black woman — gives no quarter to the possibility that district courts, by dramatically increasing the power and reach of their own decisions based solely on their demand that it be so, actually are the ones participating in a “power grab” — nor does she consider the possibility that an executive acting in a way that she dislikes is not necessarily a lawless one.

Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D-NYC) would not condemn the expressly anti-Israel call to “globalize the intifada,” despite being asked three times whether he would do so.

Host Kristen Welker posed the question, several times over, during Mamdani’s Sunday morning interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” where she correctly pointed out that the phrase is a call for violence against the Jewish people — and the self-described Democratic Socialist could not bring himself to condemn the phrase.

WATCH:

.@kwelkernbc to Mamdani:

Do you condemn that phrase, Globalize the Intifada?

But do you actually condemn it..which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews?

For the people who .. feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it?

Mamdani’s reply ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/eZuhMSEO0c

— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 29, 2025

“You were recently asked about the term ‘globalize the intifada,’ if it makes you uncomfortable. In that moment you did not condemn the phrase. Now, just so folks understand, it’s a phrase that many people hear as a call to violence against Jews. There’s been a lot of attention on this issue, so I want to give you an opportunity to respond here and now,” Welker said, setting up the question. “Do you condemn that phrase ‘globalize the intifada?'”

Mamdani gave a long reply, and while he claimed that was not the “language” that he personally would choose, he also did not condemn the phrase. Instead, he said that he believed “freedom and justice and safety are things that, to have meaning, have to be applied to all people, and that includes Israelis and Palestinians as well.”

JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free

“But do you actually condemn it?” Welker repeated. “I think that’s the question and the outstanding issue that a number of people, both of the Jewish faith and beyond, have. Do you condemn that phrase, ‘globalize the intifada,’ which a lot of people hear as a call to violence against Jews?”

Mamdani pivoted to attack Trump, and claimed he didn’t believe it was a mayor’s job to “police” the speech of the people.

“But very quickly, for the people who care about the language and who feel really concerned by that phrase, why not just condemn it?” Welker asked a third time.

Jabbing at Trump once again, Mamdani dodged the question entirely and said, “My concern is to start to walk down the line of language and making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible takes me into a place similar to that of the president, who is looking to do those very kinds of things. Ultimately, it’s not language that I use. It’s language I understand there are concerns about.”