Ketanji Brown Jackson

I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish.

I would say the state of our democracy.

That temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only justice to provide a written dissent, sharply criticized the decision as 'hubristic and senseless.'

The dual state that you lived in, and that you worked in, and that must be called out unflinchingly whenever it rears its head

A zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes

An existential threat to the rule of law

Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.

At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.

Given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the President to dramatically reconfigure the Federal Government, it was eminently reasonable for the District Court to maintain the…

Disillusionment that the majority will ever step up to defend the rule of law.

The court is prejudiced toward the 'moneyed' and 'corporate interests.'