Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.
The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump v. CASA out of Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts. These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.
However, the main question is the scope of injunctions.
As I have previously written, district court judges have issued a record number of injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.
This is a rare argument. First, it is a shadow docket filing that usually results in summary decisions without oral argument. Moreover, this matter came after what is commonly viewed as the final day for oral arguments. The Court granted a rare late oral argument, reflecting that multiple justices view this matter sufficiently serious to warrant a break from standard operating procedures.
Rather than arguing a “question presented” on birthright citizenship, the Administration is solely looking for limits on the district courts as appeals continue on the “important constitutional questions” raised by birthright citizenship.
The Administration argues that the Constitution does not give judges the power to issue universal injunctions and that courts are limited to addressing the cases before them in a given district. The Administration acknowledges that class actions can create the basis for universal injunctions, offering a moderate resolution to the Court. In such cases, if the parties can meet the standard for a national class, they can seek a national or universal injunction.
In today’s arguments (which I will be covering for Fox and on X), we can expect to hear from justices who have previously been critical of universal injunctions, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, called them “legally and historically dubious.”
Likewise, Justices Gorsuch and Alito have criticized such injunctions. In a prior dissent to an emergency filing in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in stating that the government “has a strong argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is ‘more burdensome than necessary to’ redress the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Many of us will be watching three members the most closely: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist, and we should see in his argument how he views the impact of such injunctions on the court system as a whole. He is very protective of the courts’ inherent authority but may also have misgivings about the scope of these orders.
During the Biden Administration, Justice Kagan has previously criticized universal injunctions. In an interview at Northwestern University Law School, Kagan flagged the “forum shopping” by litigants in filing cases before favorable courts:
“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right. In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
Justice Barrett previously joined with Kavanaugh in stating that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction “is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”
The argument today will start at 10 am and I will be doing a running review of the arguments on X.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue the government’s case.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, will argue for the state and local governments and Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, will argue for the private individuals and groups.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
O T – Good News. Doctors have finally located Joe Biden’s brain. They were looking in the wrong place. (“Nodule found in former President Biden’s prostate during routine physical exam” https://shiftnews.com/article/C8S64RSHC4RP4D1Q6HGK6DK565GKJCB36MRK2C1S74WK8SB36GV3MCHG68TJTC1N5MRK681H6MX38DST6MV3MKJ368?category=News
Polyp in his colon
The left is racist to the core and now, in South Africa, sound like Nazi’s.
OT: Miranda Devine: The left tries to claim white South Africans aren’t worthy of refugee status
The first group of Afrikaners from South Africa to arrive for resettlement listen to remarks from US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and US Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Troy Edgar.
The first group of Afrikaners from South Africa to arrive for resettlement listen to remarks from US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and US Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Troy Edgar at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia on May 12, 2025. AFP via Getty Images
The first group of Afrikaners from South Africa to arrive for resettlement listen to remarks from US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and US Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Troy Edgar at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia on May 12, 2025. AFP via Getty Images
The very people who facilitated the invasion of this country by millions of illegal migrants for the last four years are now crying foul over 59 persecuted white South Africans coming here as refugees at the invitation of President Trump.
The Episcopal Church, which parked itself on the southern border and received $50 million a year from the Biden administration for “refugee resettlement,” has refused to help the South Africans, citing its “steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation.”
Thousands of white farming families in South Africa have been robbed, raped, tortured and murdered in the most gruesome way as racial unrest escalates.
Continued: https://nypost.com/2025/05/14/opinion/miranda-devine-the-left-tries-to-claim-white-south-africans-arent-worthy-of-refugee-status/?utm_campaign=devineonline&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20250515&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Devine%20Online
re: S.Meyer
My family lineage dates back to soldiers serving in the Revolutionary War, part of the “first families”.
Technically we came to America illegally! Should we be deported?
Your family would be ashamed of you.
S. Meyer,
Yes. His family should be ashamed of him. How far has the apple fallen from the tree, indeed. It is him, and the likes of him, whom have corrupted the tree and now it rots from within.
S. Meyer
Very poor insult.
Far below your typical level of snotty condescension.
Where is the snarkiness ??
Where is the holier than thou condescension????
There is not a hint of snottiness.
You can do much better than this poor effort.
Please try again
Technically we came to America illegally
Yeah right, your family violated the Native American immigration laws that were in place at the time (eye-roll). What a doofus.
Those Indians are native to Asia and were present long before there was an America—1789, to be precise.
Pllllease!
Learn to love the facts.
S. Meyer,
Saw that the other day. Yes, the SA government is persecuting these people, taking their land without compensation, and they even face violence against them. Some of these leftist idiots are trying to justify the land grab as the “white” farmers are not using the land. As a farmer, for proper land management, you do crop rotation, with one year, you allow the land to go fallow. In my case, I re-plant grasses, then the following year I bring in livestock to feed on the grasses in. I practice mob grazing, or management intensive grazing. They fertilize the fields, promote better soil health, earth worm activity. Depending on which fields they are, I can hay off them too.
UpstateFarmer
Farmers are the salt of the earth.
What would we do without those wonderful people, out in the fields from dawn to dusk, working tirelessly to make sure the rest of us have food on our tables.
Too bad that you are not actually one of those farmers.
You have been here all day, and so far you have commented 18 times.
In fact, you are here all day, everyday.
Perhaps you are not really a farmer !!!!
It saddens me that the ECUSA, an offshoot of the once-venerable Anglican Church, now consists of white-hating, Israel-hating, baby-killing anti-Christians.
Lawless presidents would net more injunctions than presidents more loyal to their Oath of Office. Maybe if Trump stops breaking the law, the number of injunctions would go down also?
A first year law student could have told Trump he couldn’t overturn constitutional amendments by himself. Trump should hire some honest attorneys and the injunctions will go down if he follows their advice. Simple fix!
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof….” is precisely what the Constitution says.
And none other?
There are people with parents of different citizenship , one parent a US citizen and child born in the US. The child by derivative is a US citizen but may also be a citizen of the other parent’s nation making the child a dual citizen and not know it. What about that? Perhaps the parent’s were not married?
Did Obama formally renounce his Kenyan citizenship or his Malay citizenship? Grace Kelly filed papers giving up her US citizenship because of marriage. What about you?
^^^ Obama senior wasn’t married to Ann Dunham. That makes Barack a true bas-turd.
I was censored. Barry was a Kenyan citizen having dual citizenship until 23. He by Kenyan law, would need to renounce his alleged US citizenship from mother and swear allegiance to Kenya. Allegedly he did neither.
He was formally adopted by Indonesian stepfather, Sotero.
Once American citizens realized his history in Barry’s 2nd term the world fell apart. They instantly realized it was all false. The truth be known DJT works for him.
Here We are with senators and judges and non binary peeps all still going nuts.
All appropriate to be nuts. Watch 2001 a space odyssey again and HAL. HAL is like the little devices you’ve put in your homes always listening….
😂. Clue—> the dems are n u t s.
. . . couldn’t overturn constitutional amendments by himself . . .
Here we are with more of GBA’s lies. Nobody is trying to “overturn constitutional amendments.” That’s how hacks describe it when someone acts in a way to get a legitimate constitutional question before the Supreme Court. GBA is a hack, paid by his communist overlords to spout lies on this forum.
OldManFromKS,
Thank you for pointing that out. I really do appreciate you, Daniel, JJC, Lin and others with actual legal backgrounds to point out the actual law. Not some hacks who just copy and paste MSM sound bites that amount to nothing.
re: oldmanfromkansas
The only legal way for Trump to change the 14th and 22nd Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is through the constitutional-amendment process.
A super-majority of members of Congress and state legislatures would have to agree with Trump in order to amend the letter & spirit of any constitutional amendment.
It is blatantly illegal when Trump tried to amend the U.S. Constitution on January 20 using a presidential executive order without a super-majority in Congress and the state legislatures.
Republicans should oppose this also. The 2nd Amendment (gun rights) is also a constitutional-amendment, not part of the original Constitution in 1789. The first 10 amendments were added 2 years later in 1791.
Do you want any future president to do what Trump did overturning the 2nd Amendment in a single day using an executive order? Trump is brilliant at marketing and business, government not so much!
You load the rabbit in the hat by saying “amend”. With regard to 14A, he is trying to get a court ruling on the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Saying he is trying to amend it is a blatant lie. Lying is your native tongue.
As for 22A, he was never serious, no reasonable person thought he was serious, he was quite obviously trolling, and he has explicitly clarified that that’s what he was doing.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/04/trump-third-term-economy-tariffs-constitution/83443855007/
I’ve pointed this out to you multiple times before, but you hate reality so you make up your own crap just to slander President Trump. Your communist overlords must be proud.
P.S. Even if he was serious, saying he’s “amending” the constitution assumes he would have had some chance of getting away with it, which he quite obviously would not have. Again, lying is your native tongue. Which is why you feel at home in the Chinese Communist Party.
If executive power is vested exclusively “in a President,” and no executive power is vested in the judicial branch, why is the judicial branch exercising executive power that it can only have unconstitutionally usurped?
Answer: The Juristocracy Supremacy Clause.
_________________________________________________
“[Constitutions], to god-damned hell with [Constitutions}! We have no [Constitutions]. In fact, we don’t need [Constitutions]. I don’t have to show you any stinking [Constitutions], you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!
– “Gold Hat” [John Roberts] – The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1927) [Supreme Court (2025)]
If a gun owner had his gun or property illegally seized and taken away. A judge would intervene because the executive branch stepped out-of-bounds constitutionally.
Judges simply stop law breakers. If Trump follows the Constitution and follows the law, he will never meet a judge.
EVEN if those judges opinions are overturned! Yeah…
Because they can even in grievous error because they’re untouchable .
A core bedrock principle of our legal system is you can’t just sue because you don’t like something that’s happening in the world. You have to actually have been injured and you need to show that you are injured,” said Paul Berman, professor of law at George Washington University.
That constitutionally-based requirement is called “standing.” Some Trump supporters argue the cases were dismissed on technicalities and the allegations were never examined in court. But Berman said standing is the heart of the claim.
Why is it that when several states filed a lawsuit challenging how the state of Pennsylvania didn’t follow their own constitution regarding federal elections, they were denied due to lacking standing? But when someone files a suit in one district court, that court can issue a nationwide injunction? How does that one person in one district transfer that “standing” to every individual in every state?
Maybe Professor Turley can clarify this concept better, but Article III case or controversy (called “legal standing”) is sort of ambiguous and leaves judges lots of flexibility.
Generally speaking “legal standing” can be physical injury/harm or financial injury. In constitutional court cases you can have constructional injury or harm.
A plaintiff could file a court case claiming 4th Amendment injury (illegal search & seizure). 2nd Amendment injury (your gun rights were denied illegally) or any constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans.
The issue here seems to more “precedent” than legal standing.
If a federal district court (lowest level court) rules on a particular case, that “precedent” affects similar future cases in that local district (usually governing a single state).
If that same case gets appealed to the federal appeals court, then that ruling is “precedent” for the entire region (usually governing several states).
If like the current situation, where the different federal appeals courts disagree. We do literally have different “precedents” for different regions until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the dispute amongst appeals courts.
If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts a relevant case, once it rules it becomes the “precedent” for the entire United States – precedent for local, state and federal governments.
For example: a local court clerk in Kentucky is legally required to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples and LGBT couples – even if the local government opposes the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This benefits conservatives also. A local government is also required to follow the “Heller” ruling expanding gun rights. Even if the local government opposes gun rights.
So it does seem like a lower federal district court could only create “precedent” for that local district. Hopefully this dispute would be top priority for the U.S. Supreme to settle ASAP due to the harm it causes.
I’m just an average citizen trying to understand how the system works. All of that seems logical to me. Thank you. What also seems logical to me is standing should go both ways; with the individual and with the court. My legal “footprint” is limited. It can only get bigger as if join into an action by some entity with a bigger footprint, and/or my claim moves up the court ladder. Same should go for the courts. Their rulings should be limited to their legal footprint.
Wowwy, anon, great job!
The Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus by definition there were no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
– P.A. Madison, Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
^^^ For the people in the US illegally giving birth to children be sure to contact your nation of citizenship embassy and register your children because they don’t have a citizenship birth certificate with their actual citizenship verification as all Americans must do when giving birth in another nation because their citizen children won’t have an American birth certificate and it could cause confusion. Jeez
What a freaking joke. Yeah, I must but not you. I’m certain that SCOTUS can figure that out.
Hey, I know, if I break enough laws maybe it’ll be right logic.
Are you P.A. Madison?
Great job! Thanks
OT
If an alien cannot be summoned to jury duty in the United States, he is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, he is not a citizen, and he must be deported.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Dear Prof Turley,
If the root concern is about Judge ‘shopping’ – for ‘Trump judges’ or ‘Biden judges’ – then SCOTUS has problem no legal prosthetic can address.
Intense cognitive psychotherapy may be the only answer. Partisan politics is an infirmary.
*obviously, can’t have ‘Trump judges’ issuing decrees in one jurisdiction and ‘Biden judges’ issues decrees in another jurisdiction .. . that way lies madness.
John Sauer, Trump’s fast talking, but slow witted Solicitor General is being totally eviscerated at SCOTUS.
He is being caught out making absurd arguments.
Even Barrett has cornered him by pointing out the absurdity of his arguments.
Just one example that would be obvious to even you MAGA morons:
Sotomayor notes that in the absence of nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, “that would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a ‘clearly, indisputably unconstitutional’ act of taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that.”
Basically she is saying that if the government simply decided to seize every gun in the country in violation of the 2nd amendment, then the courts would be essentially powerless to stop them. If courts could not issue nationwide injunctions, then any injunction to stop the seizure would apply only in limited jurisdictions.
Sauer has also been making an absurd argument that any injunction regarding birthright citizenship should apply only to the jurisdiction of the District Court that makes it.
Then he literally acknowledged that this would create a situation where a person’s “citizenship” would change as he or she crossed state lines.
You couldn’t make this insanity up.
It is laughably absurd.
Which is why they do not have the authority to enjoin the Executive branch. A single district court judge with power over a limited district cannot affect national policy without instituting a class.
Try to keep up. It’s very simple.
Just because you can Make an argument, it doesn’t mean you win by default, you twit.
Matt, they win by reason. Anyone born in a state where Birthright is deemed unconstitutional would be a non-citizen in another state, and social security numbers would be worthless in some states.
It seems the Supreme Court would be reluctant to create this chaotic environment.
Let’s remember that the large number of nationwide injunctions is only happening because of Trump. Once he leaves office and a more rational and smarter individual takes office, the need for nationwide injunctions will dramatically decrease.
What you’re describing happens every time there’s a circuit split, which is one circumstance where Scotus is likely to step in and clarify the law nationally. Before they’re resolved by Scotus, circuit split do, as you describe, engender inconsistency in the law from region to region. But that does not affect the scope of jurisdiction of the US district judges. Stated differently, district judges’ jurisdiction does not suddenly expand to encompass the whole nation just because a circuit split might otherwise occur.
But that would mean waiting for a Supreme Court ruling and that takes a long time. Meanwhile those being harmed by the EO will still be harmed until the Supreme court rules. A national injunction would prevent harm until the case reaches the Supreme court.
As someone noted here a law calling for the confication of guns nationwide would be have to be in effect until the case reaches SCOTUS. Until then guns could be confiscated and/or destroyed while the case is being argued through the courts. Republicans would never stand for that.
Whether Republicans would stand for it or not is beside the point. It would have to be challenged in the usual way. Once a lawsuit is initiated, the party that believes the issue needs to be decided right away by an appellate court can petition for the higher court to scoop the case up and decide it. Then the higher court (including Scotus) can rule on the petition, either denying it, or granting it if they believe the case fits the description of one that needs emergency resolution. If the case really is that dire, this process can be done very quickly.
“Sotomayor notes that in the absence of nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, “that would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a ‘clearly, indisputably unconstitutional’ act of taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that.”
**************************
More dunderheaded logic by the head dundette-herself. A nationwide ban on firearms would be obviously unConstitutional and the place to stop that isn’t in the Eastern District of Bumfuque. It should go right to SCOTUS who could get off their powdered duffs and do what they are supposed to do which is rule. Why these lawyers hem and haw when they should tell this priesthood of robeists to do at least as much work in a week as most Americans do in half a day is beyond me but, of course, they are the ruling oligarchs.
Like our finest President said, “the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” ~Abraham Lincoln (First Inaugural Address)
Imagine that power vested not in SCOTUS as a whole, but in the hands of some political hack in the Eastern District of Bumfuque.
But even SCOTUS would not be able to issue a nationwide injunction. That’s what Sauer argued.
Expedite when president is involved but even then the lower courts will create a circumstance with minute by minute injunctions rendering the executive powerless and the will of the people who elected the executive.
There are no repercussions for unelected judges and justices. These judges are throwing monkey wrenches with abandon.
Dundette 😂.
That’s a very good point. 2nd Amendment advocates should be very concerned if Trump’s argument succeeds. Any state or city could enact gun control laws and courts would be powerless to do anything about it except in their local jurisdictions.
It’s the same with abortion rights. Those seeking to enjoin abortion bans would not be able to. That’s why they want an exemption on pregnant women.
Abortion bans are by state you idiot. Stop repeating that nonsense.
Ano
So I take it, you have never listened to Biden people talking to the high court. Total morons.
Thanks for playing
We seem to be in stasis with everyone being terrified of the DNC and their tendrils. Why is this? Surely SCOTUS is immune to such pressure. And yet: Coney Barret and even Kavanaugh at times, who were harassed to the skies, seem to be deflecting of late. Why? Something is very, very wrong here. I do not disagree that Obama laid the tracks for future shenanigans, but as it has trickled down, it just doesn’t make sense.
We are not this country of cowards, and if even SCOTUS is defying the will of the people with law in consideration – we are in trouble, if we do not rectify this.
OT sort of
This is a good idea that likely will not pass even though people like Roberts and Boasberg increase its chances.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/judicial-coup-exposed-new-bill-proposed-answer-courts
But the proposal is a shot across the bow of the judiciary and something is likely to come out of Congress eventually that will see, I hope, a humbled and much diminished judiciary.
Justice Thomas destroys nationwide injunctions with one question:
ttps://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/15/justice-thomas-destroys-case-for-nationwide-injunctions-with-one-devastating-question-n4939815
If we had more brilliant justices like Thomas the courts wouldn’t be a growing national scandal.
And, by the way, why aren’t Sotomayor and Jackson recusing themselves from any case touching on the administration given their public statements about fighting it? By their own declarations they seem that they aren’t even pretending to think judicially and without bias. Members of Congress should speak up on this. Bring the heat.
I notice that Turley cites NO statute, case law or other basis for the SCOTUS to limit the authority of a federal district court’s injunctive power to JUST that district. That’s because there is NO such law, and he knows it. AND, if that WERE the law, then where would a litigant file a challenge to Trump’s illegal EOs? What court WOULD have subject-matter jurisdiction? Turley doesn’t answer that one. Of course, Turley just HAS to put a MAGA spin on the facts: “Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. ” Uh, no. Biden reversed things Trump did the first time around because they were wrong and unpopular, just like most of the EOs Trump keeps issuing this time around–all set out in Project 2025. A prime example is the underlying case here–Trump’s pathetic effort to re-write birthright citizenship. Then, there’s the refusal to provide due process to the men deported to El Salvador. And, Turley brings up the fact that there have been an unprecedented number of injunctions issed against Trump–implying that, somehow, this is wrong. Turley knows better. There have been an unprecedented number of injuctions because the authors of Project 2025 prepared, long before he entered the White House, an unprecedented number of Executive Orders for Trump’s signature. The US was not intended to be governed by Executive Orders, but since Trump can’t get any legislation passed, that’s what he does, forcing aggrieved people to seek out injunctive relief. Now, the Trump regime is trying to limit the power of Courts to stop his Executive Orders–it’s all just part of the unconstitutional power-grab.
In which case(s) did the Court decide children born to anyone not authorized to be in the country are to be endowed with automatic citizenship? There doesn’t see to be a case where that specific question was ever ‘heard’.
I believe you’re correct. In the case that’s closest, US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the parents were here legally. That is a pretty major distinction from this case. Whether it is ultimately a material distinction for constitutional purposes will depend how this case turns out.
And that distinction should not be dismissed without a hearing. Courts decisions err from time to time. No reason to let them stand in perputity without redress “just because”.
It is definitely possible the Court previously erred and now it’s time to correct that error . . . BUT, even absent error in the prior case, the distinction may be material, and on that you’re right that it should not be dismissed without a hearing.
From “Wikipedia”–citing the Fourteenth Amendment:
“Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal “jurisdiction” of the U.S. federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Note that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the citizenship of the parents of the persons born in the United States. The fake dispute is just more MAGA flotsam.
Suppose the Trump administration succeeds in limiting nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship would only be valid in states still considered constitutional. It’s stupid. The Constitution was created so that the rules would apply to all states. That’s why it’s called the Constitution of the United States, not the Constitution of some States. A state could refuse to recognize your citizenship if you were born in another state where they don’t accept Birthright citizenship.
OMG really george.
So the Trump administration argues that even the Supreme Court could not impose nationwide injunctions. Except for pregnant women. Really? They are trying to carve out an exemption that would still allow for a nation wide injunction on abortion rights. How convenient.
They want to ban nationwide injunctions because it encourages forum shopping and asking the court to make an exemption so they can use…forum shopping to push for a nation wide injunction when it comes to abortion rights. Cute.
Sauer says that “snap judgements by other judges” on Birthright citizenship cases are not a reason to believe that the EO is unconstitutional (paraphrasing)”
That’s because they all agree Trump’s EO IS clearly unconstitutional and requires very little deliberation. Four Supreme Court precedents point this out.
It seems so far that this ruling will be a very close call. Justice Barrett already seems to not agree with the Trump administration’s arguments. It will likely be Roberts who determine the outcome.
In the bigger picture, abortion is a medical, moral and a personal matter, not a legal one. Morality is in the domain of the Church and an “establishment of religion.” US government at all levels lacks jurisdiction. As to the birthright clause, I’ve long wondered why administration after administration will allow some foreign nationals to kidnap/steal/remove a newborn US citizen from its rightful home and take it to their place of origin or legal residence, without due process of law?
The Supreme Court has never agreed with that. Even Roe v. Wade disagreed with that. It said the government has a legitimate interest in regulating abortion, thus making it a valid topic for legislation. Some legislative restrictions on abortion were upheld during the period when Roe was in force. Roe put limitations on such legislation, but it did not prohibit it.
The government regulates all sorts of medical procedures. It is perverse to suggest that the one procedure that involves killing a human fetus is the very one that cannot be legislative regulated.
Hey old man, we the people pay the SC to judge acts of Congress in accordance with the letter of the law of the Constitution. What would you like them to throw-out next, the right to bear arms? Amend-don’t just violate. CGS
Hey, anonymous, I have no idea what this means: “What would you like them to throw-out next, the right to bear arms? Amend-don’t just violate.”
Could you please explain?
“Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Simple enough think, if any Congress/SC is to meddle in any affairs of morality the Constitution should be amended to allow that. As to those other medical procedures do they include the morality issue? As to the right to bear arms, if the SC can usurp the First Amendment then why not the Second? CGS
Virtually all state laws involve morality, including laws criminalizing theft and murder. Are they all unconstitutional?
Clearly the “choice” is that of the separate and sovereign human being, the unborn child, who demonstrates his choice to persist simply by persisting.
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
What’s your point, you’ll be eating them in your sausage. These people are the same as lions, tigers and apes. Respond appropriately.
Emma, ever heard of “miscarriage?” Which came first, miscarriage or abortion; at who’s hand? Furthermore, I believe a fetus only becomes conscious/human about the time of birth. Also, is there some shortage of humanity I’m not yet aware of? Charles G. Shaver
Anonymous – what does a miscarriage have to do with it? We’re talking about elective abortions. Try and stay on topic.
Second, perhaps you’re using a definition of “conscious/human” that you privately invented for yourself, but scientifically the fetus is human from conception (it is not canine or feline, for example). As far as conscious goes, it is undisputed that a fetus can feel pain while in the womb.
Finally, whether there is a shortage of humanity or not is completely beside the point. By that reasoning murder should be legalized in high-population areas.
You had me at, “separate and sovereign human being…” 😊
Right, commerce was used. For these people abortion is nothing but pure commerce. How do you not know that and your liver is tasty with Fava beans.
It’s interesting the Trump administration requested an exemption on injunctions for pregnant women. It just goes to show that they want limits on nationwide injunctions except those that will involve abortion bans.
What the heck are you even talking about? You make no sense.
Abortion is currently legal.
OT
If an alien cannot be summoned to jury duty in the United States, he is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, he is not a citizen, and he must be deported.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Yes, and I only added the two cases because they address removal before expiration of term.
Several congressmen, knowing they would likely be defeated by calling Trump’s removal of the Librarian illegal/unconstitutional, have pointed out that his temporary replacements for the other two (copyrights, etc.) are from the Executive branch and can only be filled by the Librarian/legislative branch. I also believe this does not hold water.
The above was in response to a comment that has apparently been removed, so just ignore it! (I surmise that is why it appeared here out of nowhere!)