Mark Levin Blasts Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Calls Supreme Court Dissent ‘Radical’ and Warns of Judicial Overreach

In a scathing monologue on Fox News’ Life, Liberty & Levin, conservative commentator Mark Levin delivered a no-holds-barred denunciation of the U.S. judiciary—reserving his sharpest criticism for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“This is not just a procedural issue,” Levin warned viewers. “This is a battle royale for the very soul of our constitutional republic.”

The source of his outrage? Recent Supreme Court decisions narrowing the use of universal injunctions by lower federal courts, rulings Levin praised as crucial victories for the separation of powers. But it was the dissenting opinions—particularly that of Justice Jackson—that drew Levin’s fiercest ire.

“She does not belong on this Court,” Levin said flatly. “Her dissent wasn’t legal reasoning—it was a string of slogans, labels, and ideological rhetoric.”

The Case Against Universal Injunctions

At the heart of the controversy is the Supreme Court’s decision to rein in the power of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that block federal laws or executive actions not just for plaintiffs, but for everyone in the country.

Traditionally, injunctions apply only to the parties involved in a case. But under both the Obama and Trump administrations, lower courts increasingly issued universal injunctions, effectively halting major policy actions nationwide.

Levin argued this practice amounted to “judicial tyranny” and praised the Supreme Court’s majority for restoring balance. “These judges are supposed to resolve specific controversies—not exercise general oversight over the executive branch,” he said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion in the case, which partially stayed an injunction against a Biden-era executive order. Levin, typically skeptical of Barrett, called her ruling “a knockout.”

A Deepening Ideological Divide

The segment also focused on a second case out of Montgomery County, Maryland, where parents had objected to elementary school curricula featuring LGBTQ+ themes. The school district, according to Levin, refused to allow parental opt-outs—igniting a legal battle over parental rights and religious freedom.

“What kind of garbage are they putting in front of a seven-year-old?” Levin asked, accusing the district of “indoctrinating children against the wishes of their parents.”

Again, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of the school district, with the same liberal justices—Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—in dissent.

To Levin, these two cases symbolize a broader trend of what he calls “authoritarian democracy”—a system where elected officials and bureaucracies act as though elections grant them unchecked power, with the judiciary enabling overreach rather than restraining it.

Jackson in the Crosshairs

While he criticized all three liberal justices, Levin singled out Jackson’s dissent for special rebuke. “This is a perfect example of a radical, out-of-control justice,” he said. “If you want to know where the left is headed, read her opinion.”

Levin accused Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor of attempting to reshape constitutional principles to fit progressive goals. He also warned that if Democrats gain the opportunity to appoint more justices, decisions like these could be overturned entirely.

“They rely on unelected judges and a massive bureaucracy—that’s how they rule,” Levin said, echoing themes from his upcoming book On Power, which he claims will expose the erosion of constitutional government by progressive elites.

A Warning for the Future

Levin’s fiery address concluded with a stark warning: “These cases shouldn’t have needed to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. But we’re in a fight against a dangerous ideology that’s incompatible with constitutional government.”

Despite the Supreme Court rulings, Levin said the threat remains. “Those radical judges are still in place. They will keep trying to circumvent the Constitution,” he said. “This is just the beginning.”

Calling the six-justice majority a “constitutional—not conservative—majority,” Levin expressed hope but cautioned that the battle over judicial power is far from over.

“Thank God they ruled as they did,” he said. “Because if they hadn’t, it wouldn’t just be a matter of legal overreach. It would be a complete deconstruction of our constitutional system.”

As election season heats up, Levin’s message is clear: the courts—and the Constitution itself—are on the ballot.