Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not hold back in her majority opinion in one of the most contentious Supreme Court cases the nine justices have presided over this term.

Accusing her colleague of ‘embracing an imperial judiciary’, Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lifted the curtain behind the often tense disagreements that Justices in the highest court in the land have to grapple with.

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’S argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary” 

In another scathing critique of Jackson’s dissent, Barrett called it ‘at odds with more than two centuries of’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself’. (RELATED: Wisconsin Republicans Push Election Reforms to Rein in Ballot Confusion, Restore Voter Trust)

Jackson’s dissent, along with Justice Barrett’s biting response, have led some to call her competence into question. Writing for The Telegraph, one attorney went so far as to call her an ‘insult’ to the Supreme Court.

The legal matter that sparked the unusually harsh war of words concerned whether district courts can issue universal injunctions that prevent the President from enforcing the law nationwide. (RELATED: Milwaukee State rep Warns Time is Running out on “street takeover” Law)

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that district courts can only give relief to parties represented by the plaintiff in a case, rather than universal nationwide relief to any party affected by executive branch action.

The executive action at issue was an executive order by President Trump effectively ending birthright citizenship, a long held practice conferring citizenship on to anyone born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. The Trump administration has announced that it will resume enforcement of the order as soon as this month.