Select Language:
US Supreme Court Rules on Federal Judicial Power, Favoring Trump
WASHINGTON: In a significant ruling on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a substantial win to former President Donald Trump by limiting the authority of individual federal judges to halt executive actions.
In a 6-3 vote regarding Trump’s efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship, the court asserted that nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress."
While the ruling did not adjudicate the constitutionality of Trump’s executive directive to end automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S., the decision on judicial authority removes a considerable obstacle for Trump’s often contentious policy initiatives. This ruling may have profound implications for the judiciary’s capacity to challenge Trump or future presidents.
Trump expressed his enthusiasm by informing the press he had "a whole list" of policies that he could now advance without judicial interference.
His executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of many actions that have faced judicial roadblocks from judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents since he assumed office in January. Courts have, for instance, intervened to obstruct or delay his strict immigration policies, termination of federal employees, attempts to abolish diversity programs, and sanctions against law firms and universities.
While past presidents have similarly lamented national injunctions limiting their agendas, such orders have surged under Trump. Reports indicate he encountered more nationwide injunctions in his first two months than President Joe Biden faced in his first three years.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion with the support of five other conservative justices, noted that "the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our nation’s history." She asserted, "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch," adding that when a court determines that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, it shouldn’t overstep its own authority.
The dissenting three liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, lamented that "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." She characterized the decision as encouraging the government to sidestep constitutional constraints, stating, "The Executive Branch can now implement policies that disregard established law and infringe upon countless individuals’ constitutional rights, while federal courts will struggle to fully curtail its actions."
A "Giant Win" for Trump
Trump took to Truth Social to label the judgement a "GIANT WIN."
The case centered on his executive order regarding birthright citizenship, which had previously been deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state. However, the core issue was whether a single federal district court judge has the authority to issue a nationwide injunction against a presidential action.
This issue has turned into a rallying point for Trump and his Republican supporters, who argue that the judiciary is obstructing his agenda against the will of the electorate. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, stated that the court’s ruling "significantly undermines federal courts’ ability to check unlawful government actions." He warned that this could lead to inconsistent birthright citizenship rights across different jurisdictions.
The Trump administration had urged the Supreme Court to limit district court injunctions exclusively to the parties involved in the case and the specific jurisdiction of the presiding judge. Trump’s executive order proposed that children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically gain citizenship, which three lower courts determined violated the 14th Amendment.
The amendment stipulates: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Add us on ChatGPT
Add us on Perplexity
