FOX News contributor and GWU law professor Jonathan Turley weighs in on Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinion on “Hannity.”

KELLYANNE CONWAY, “HANNITY” GUEST HOST: For anyone against unchecked government power, this was a very, very good day. Here now with analysis, FOX News contributor Jonathan Turley. Jonathan Turley, what an incredible day at the Supreme Court. Let’s have you break it down. And also I think people are very curious how this does impact things like sanctuary city funding, birthright citizenship and other issues at play. JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, thank you, Kellyanne. I think that the first thing the president should do is go buy a lottery ticket because he’s having a heck of a week and if I was going to get a lottery ticket, it’s probably be today. But this is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of his policies, from immigration, to birthright citizenship, to DOGE cuts. That will presumably now be tamped down. If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they’ll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that’s going to continue to reverse some of these — lift some of these injunctions. As you noted, the opinion was really radioactive in this take-down of Justice Jackson. I — it’s rare. I’ve been — I’ve been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It’s rare to see that type of exchange. The important thing to remember is that, you know, Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver but she didn’t do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this and I think it’s very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court. But this was really an astonishing uh takedown by the justice. But it’s the — it’s the hyperbole that’s coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice Sotomayor in that Maryland case said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few lessons was going to, quote, create chaos and probably end public education. Then you had Justice Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the death of democracy. It’s the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided. CONWAY: It is and if it sounds familiar to our viewers, it means that they’re clued into what is being said on some other channels. I mean, we just can’t have Supreme Court justices who sound like partisan pundits, and when it comes to that, I really just struck by Amy Coney Barrett going after a Ketanji Brown Jackson. And it seems like these nationwide injunctions, just to back up a minute. These were low-level activist judges. One person trying to have a nationwide stop on the power of our executive in this case the presidency of the United States and what do you make of the non-Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from Sotomayor and Kagan. What was their objection? Why — why can’t they — why would they want one judge to hold up a president’s authority? TURLEY: Well, it was particularly notable to see Justice Kagan in — with the dissents because during the Obama administration, she described these national or universal injunctions as essentially ridiculous. She said you can’t have a government like this but she somehow found her comfort zone in the Trump administration. And she never really has explained how she could pull that 180 when it comes to injunctions. But they said that no, these judges need to be able to exercise this power. You know, the response particularly of Jackson but also of the dissent is so outsized in terms of what the — what the opinion actually said. The majority of the court said, look, you can enjoin the government to protect the parties in your case. You can enjoin the government in your given district. You can even have a national injunction if you have a national class action. What you can’t do is to take one person who comes in your courtroom and freeze the entire federal government nationwide based on that case. And what the justice has said to majority is where’s your authority for this, and really those dissenting justices don’t explain where they find that. CONWAY: Trump derangement syndrome in the dissent from the Supreme Court today no doubt and as you say in in previous cases. In the moments we have left, Jonathan Turley, do you think that we’ll ever know who leaked the Dobbs decision three and a half years ago? TURLEY: I still hope that we do. That was a huge blow to the court as an institution and I think that when we’re talking about the hyperbole and the rhetoric that we saw this week all of that’s going against this culture of civility and mutual respect, I think the institution is having a crisis of identity. But that leak was the greatest of those blows. You know, in a — in a city that literally floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the Supreme Court has been this island. I — and I’m hoping that the Trump administration by reopening this case could find the answer. CONWAY: They sure are working at a volume and velocity that defies political gravity in Washington. So I share your optimism there. Jonathan Turley, thank you very much.

RealClearPolitics Videos