Conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk sparked fresh outrage Friday after attacking Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as a “diversity hire” in the aftermath of a pivotal 6-3 ruling that handed a major victory to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
“Ketanji Brown Jackson is a diversity hire. She is only there because she’s a black woman,” the Turning Point USA co-founder posted Friday on X, drawing immediate backlash, as critics blasted Kirk for attacking a Supreme Court justice whose credentials and experience far outshine his own.
His comment came after Jackson issued a blistering dissent in a case where the conservative majority ruled that federal district courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions — a move that allowed Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship to go into effect in some regions.
At the heart of the dispute was Trump’s controversial policy that narrows who qualifies for birthright citizenship. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order redefining citizenship to exclude children born in the U.S. to parents without legal immigration status. The order flew in the face of longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment and more than a century of legal precedent.
Lower courts had blocked Trump’s policy, issuing broad injunctions to prevent harm to potentially thousands affected.
But in its decision Friday, the high court sided with Trump, ruling that such relief could only apply to the specific plaintiffs involved in each specific case.
Speaking from the White House, Trump hailed the decision as “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
In light of the ruling, Trump indicated he would immediately advance new restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked previously by the U.S. district courts.
“The Constitution has been brought back,” Trump declared.
Attorney General Pam Bondi slammed the lower courts, accusing them of blocking the will of the voters and standing in the way of what Americans elected Trump to do.
“These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court,” she said.
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson —each dissented, calling the ruling dangerous and enabling unchecked executive power. Sotomayor said the court was complicit in the erosion of democracy. “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way.”
Jackson’s dissent was even sharper. She warned that the ruling posed “an existential threat to the rule of law,” saying, “It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
She added, “With deep disillusionment, I dissent.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, accused Jackson of mischaracterizing the court’s role. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett said, insisting the power of the courts is not unlimited.
Kirk’s attack on Jackson, a Harvard-educated jurist who clerked for former Justice Stephen Breyer and once served as a federal public defender, was swiftly condemned.
Many critics pointed to Kirk’s own résumé to highlight the audacity of his remark.
Kirk’s insult reflected a growing fixation among right-wing voices on “DEI” — diversity, equity, and inclusion — which the MAGA movement has increasingly blamed for what it claims is a collapse in standards across American institutions.
But critics say the real outcome of dismantling DEI efforts has been the opposite: a landscape dominated by “mediocre white boys,” as Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas memorably put it recently. In this light, Kirk’s attack wasn’t just personal — it was part of a broader ideological crusade. But social media critics wasted no time putting Kirk in his place, with many pointing out the stark contrast between his credentials and Jackson’s résumé.
“Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University. She graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government and earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude. While at Harvard Law School, she served as a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review … Charlie Kirk dropped out of community college,” one critic responded to Kirk’s post.
The backlash even reached all the way to Capitol Hill, with Democrats accusing Republicans of hypocrisy.
“For the past four years, Republicans ran to their handpicked judges in select districts seeking universal injunctions against Biden Administration policies they disliked,” U.S. Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont said in a statement.
“Now, mere months into his administration, President Trump’s Supreme Court has decided to limit lower courts’ ability to hold him accountable. Let’s be clear: this is another instance of the Court bending over backwards to insulate this administration from any restraint on its power,” the statement continued.
It’s worth noting that dissenting opinions are a routine part of Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly in controversial split decisions. These dissents are not only expressions of disagreement but often serve as roadmaps for future cases, should the Court revisit an issue in a different political or legal climate.
Justice Jackson’s path to the nation’s highest court is well documented. Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Miami, she was a standout in high school debate and went on to attend Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Her career spans both public service and private practice, including time as a federal public defender and a U.S. Sentencing Commissioner. She served as a federal judge before being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Biden and sworn in on June 30, 2022.
While Jackson’s dissent will not change the outcome of the case for now, it stands as a searing critique of executive overreach — and the Court’s failure, in her view, to serve as a meaningful check on presidential power.
