MAGA Fury Unleashed as Justice Sides Against Trump Again

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, faces intense backlash from MAGA supporters after siding with liberal justices in a key immigration case involving the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Key Takeaways

Justice Barrett joined the three liberal Supreme Court justices in dissenting against a decision that allows deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling permits deportations to continue but requires judicial review and due process for those facing removal.
Conservative commentators and Trump supporters have harshly criticized Barrett, calling her decision a betrayal of Trump and conservative principles.
Barrett emphasized the necessity of due process before deporting individuals, aligning with Justice Sotomayor’s concerns about threats to the rule of law.
Despite this controversial decision, Barrett has historically voted with the court’s most conservative justices over 80% of the time in 2023.

Supreme Court’s Divided Decision on Deportation Authority

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court granted President Trump’s emergency request to enforce the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for deportations while legal challenges continue. Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke ranks with her fellow conservative justices, joining liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson in dissent. The ruling permits the government to proceed with deportations but mandates that individuals must have the opportunity to challenge their removal through proper judicial review and due process procedures.

The case centered on the Trump administration’s attempt to use the centuries-old wartime law to expedite deportations. Barrett’s dissent particularly emphasized the importance of allowing normal federal appeal processes rather than rushing the case through on an emergency basis. The majority decision strengthens the government’s position while still requiring court hearings for those targeted under the Act, a provision that Justice Sotomayor explicitly welcomed in her dissenting opinion.

MAGA Outrage Erupts Over Barrett’s Dissent

Barrett’s decision to join the liberal justices has ignited fierce criticism from conservative commentators and MAGA supporters. Many have expressed feelings of betrayal, questioning her loyalty to the president who appointed her and to conservative principles. The backlash has been particularly intense on social media platforms, where prominent MAGA voices have publicly denounced her decision and criticized her judicial philosophy.

Amy Coney Barrett, once a conservative darling, is now officially a swamp creature. Her mask is off, showing her true colors on the bench. She sided with the 3 liberal justices when it came to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act… Trump needs to distance himself from the… pic.twitter.com/OevlI79g8O

— The 🐰🕳️ (@TheHoleTweet) April 8, 2025

Other critics have resorted to gender-based attacks, with Jeff Younger commenting that, “All the men on the Court voted the law. All the women, including Amy Coney Barrett, voted their feelings.”

Barrett’s Broader Judicial Record and Due Process Concerns

Despite the current controversy, Barrett has historically maintained a conservative voting record on the Supreme Court. In 2023, she voted with the court’s most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, more than 80% of the time. Her decision in this case appears to be driven by concerns about proper judicial review rather than a shift in ideology. In her dissent, Barrett agreed with portions of Justice Sotomayor’s opinion that emphasized the need for due process in deportation proceedings.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the administration’s actions “posed an extraordinary threat to the rule of law.” Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union viewed the court’s requirement for judicial review as a victory for due process rights. The case will return to the district court in Washington, DC, for further proceedings, where the merits of the government’s position will be evaluated more thoroughly through standard legal channels rather than the emergency procedure initially sought by the administration.