Thread: US supreme court limits federal judges’ power to block Trump orders | 14th amendment

Follow 608.1K Followers

US supreme court limits federal judges’ power to block Trump orders

Story by Joseph Gedeon in Washington
• 22m • 4 min read



People protest in support of birthright citizenship outside the supreme court in Washington DC on 15 May 2025. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP© Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit district judges’ power to block his orders on a nationwide basis, in an emergency appeal related to the birthright citizenship case but with wide implications for the executive branch’s power. The court’s opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president’s order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear.

The decision on Friday morning, however, decided six votes to three by the nine-member supreme court bench, sides with the Trump administration in a historic case that boosts tested presidential power and judicial oversight in the second Trump administration.
The conservative majority wrote that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts”, granting “the government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue”.
The ruling, written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump’s policy seeking a ban on birthright citizenship go into effect immediately and did not address the policy’s legality. The fate of the policy remains imprecise.

Related video: Supreme Court limits powers of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions (CNBC)

With the court’s conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump’s executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday’s ruling.The US president called the decision a “giant win”. In a social media post he called birthright citizenship a hoax and claimed the rights had been “indirectly, hard hit”, although his ban is not the law of the land at this point.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. She argued that the majority’s decision, restricting federal court powers to grant national legal relief in cases, allows Trump to enforce unconstitutional policies against people who haven’t filed lawsuits, meaning only those with the resources and legal standing to challenge the order in court would be protected.
“The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law ... it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.”

Barrett also delivered a particularly sharp rebuke directed at Jackson in the majority opinion, writing: “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.”
Speaking from the bench, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the court’s majority decision “a travesty for the rule of law”.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the ruling as opening the door to partial enforcement of a ban on automatic birthright citizenship for almost everyone born in the US, in what it called an illegal policy.
“The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project said in a statement.
Democratic attorneys general who brought the original challenge said in a press conference that while the ruling had been disappointing, the silver lining is that the supreme court left open pathways for continued protection and that “birthright citizenship remains the law of the land”.

“We fought a civil war to address whether babies born on United States soil are, in fact, citizens of this country,” New Jersey attorney general Matthew Platkin said, speaking alongside colleagues from Washington, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. “For a century and a half, this has not been in dispute.”
Platkin argued the court’s decision still allows lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions where necessary to provide complete relief to states, making a vow that his coalition would return to district court to argue that without uniform citizenship standards, states cannot effectively administer benefits and services.
The court’s ruling in Trump v CASA, Inc will boost Trump’s potential to enforce citizenship restrictions, in this and other cases in future, in states where courts had not specifically blocked them, creating a chaotic patchwork.

Trump’s January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing.
The real fight in Trump v CASA Inc, wasn’t about immigration but judicial power. Trump’s lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country.
Three judges blocked Trump’s order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts hadn’t specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen.

The 14th amendment to the US constitution’s citizenship clause overturned the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize.
Reuters contributed reporting

US supreme court limits federal judges’ power to block Trump orders

Winning: Supreme Court Ends Abuse of Injunctions

No More ‘Judicial Supremacy’

Barrett Nukes Jackson

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in the controversial “birthright citizenship” case that lower courts cannot simply issue nationwide injunctions, and that doing so is an abuse of their judicial power.

Joel B. Pollak

3,895

…Says Argument ’At Odds’ with Centuries’ Worth of Precedent, Constitution…

…’Decries Imperial Executive while embracing Imperial Judiciary’…

John Binder158

…Live: Trump Reacts to Rulings

Breitbart News