Fact Check: Justices Sotomayor and Jackson call ruling an existential threat to the rule of law.

Fact Check: Justices Sotomayor and Jackson Call Ruling an Existential Threat to the Rule of Law

What We Know

Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding birthright citizenship, which has sparked significant dissent among its liberal justices. In their dissenting opinions, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed strong concerns about the implications of the ruling. Justice Sotomayor stated, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” emphasizing that the ruling poses a threat not only to birthright citizenship but potentially to other rights as well (The Hill, New Republic). Justice Jackson echoed these sentiments, labeling the ruling an “existential threat to the rule of law” (The Guardian).

Analysis

The dissenting opinions from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson are crucial in understanding the broader implications of the Supreme Court's ruling. Sotomayor's dissent articulates a fear that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, allowing for the erosion of civil liberties under future administrations. She uses a hypothetical scenario to illustrate her point: if an executive order were to deny unemployment benefits to women or voting rights to Black citizens, the majority opinion would still support the government's ability to circumvent judicial checks (New Republic).

Justice Jackson's statement reinforces this perspective, highlighting her agreement with Sotomayor's concerns. The phrase “existential threat to the rule of law” suggests that the justices believe the ruling undermines the foundational principles of judicial oversight and accountability (The Hill, The Guardian).

Both justices are recognized for their legal acumen and commitment to civil rights, which adds weight to their dissent. Their opinions reflect a broader concern among legal scholars and civil rights advocates about the potential for executive overreach and the implications for democracy and individual rights.

Conclusion

The claim that Justices Sotomayor and Jackson called the ruling an existential threat to the rule of law is True. Their dissenting opinions explicitly articulate this concern, highlighting the potential risks to civil liberties and the judicial system posed by the ruling. The justices' comments reflect a significant apprehension about the future of legal protections in the United States.