If there’s one thing almost guaranteed to send Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson into a full-blown ideological meltdown, it’s the Supreme Court siding with President Trump, and that’s exactly what happened this week. In a 6 to 3 decision, the high court delivered another major win for the Trump Administration, approving an emergency request to reinstate immigration enforcement authority and revoke the so-called “legal status” granted to hundreds of thousands of migrants by the Biden regime.
This wasn’t just a policy disagreement, it was a direct rebuke of a lower court’s lawless attempt to handcuff the president’s constitutional authority over immigration. And as expected, Ketanji Brown Jackson wasn’t having it. She didn’t just dissent, she fired off a solo opinion full of emotion and thin on constitutional logic, accusing the court of trying to “disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible.”
What really happened? The Supreme Court simply affirmed that Temporary Protected Status, TPS, actually means temporary, a point lost on the Biden administration and Judge Edward Chen, a left wing Obama appointee from California who tried to stop the Trump Administration from reversing TPS for roughly 600,000 Venezuelan migrants.
Let’s not forget how we got here. In 2021, Biden granted TPS to Venezuelans, then expanded it in 2023, ignoring the fact that many of these individuals entered illegally and only received “status” after the fact. The Trump Administration moved to revoke this blanket protection, citing legal authority and national interest. Predictably, the left screamed racism, bias, and emotional hardship, as if those override the rule of law.
Kash Patel put it well recently when he said investigations and enforcement take time, but the left wants instant results, especially when it benefits their voter base. That’s what this is really about. TPS isn’t about compassion anymore. It’s a backdoor to permanent residence, handed out like candy by Democrats hoping for long-term political payoffs.
And yet again, Justice Jackson ignores all of that. Instead of upholding the Constitution, she uses her perch on the high court to write angry blog posts disguised as legal dissents. It’s becoming her trademark.
If Jackson is so determined to side with activist lower courts and federal agencies pushing radical immigration policies, maybe she’d be more comfortable on one of those lower courts. Because when it comes to constitutional clarity, she’s on the wrong bench. Again.
Leave a Comment