The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Trump v. Casa* establishes a significant limitation on the judiciary’s power to restrain the executive branch, specifically regarding universal injunctions. The majority opinion, led by Justice Barrett, argues that federal courts lack the authority to issue injunctions that apply beyond the immediate parties involved, creating a “gap” where the government can act unlawfully without judicial recourse. This decision, rooted in a narrow interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, potentially invalidates numerous past injunctions and allows the government to sidestep constitutional challenges by focusing on procedural maneuvers rather than defending the legality of its actions. The author argues that this decision is a threat to the rule of law.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision restricting federal judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions, impacting cases like those challenging President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. This ruling, split along ideological lines, enables the Trump administration to advance its policies and reinforces claims of judicial overreach. The case involved nationwide injunctions used to halt the order’s enforcement while lawsuits progressed. Ultimately, the court determined that universal injunctions likely surpass the authority granted to federal courts by Congress.
Read More
The US Supreme Court is currently reviewing a challenge to a Trump administration attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, but the core issue isn’t the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. Instead, the justices are focusing on whether lower courts have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive actions, a legal maneuver known as a “universal injunction.” This procedural question, while seemingly technical, has enormous implications for birthright citizenship, as a ruling against universal injunctions would effectively gut the lower courts’ ability to prevent the administration’s policy from taking effect.
The central argument before the court revolves around the limits of judicial power to intervene in executive actions on a nationwide scale.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood