Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether individual federal judges should have the power to block presidential policies nationwide as they consider Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship injunctions.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court is examining whether district court judges can issue nationwide injunctions against presidential policies, not the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship order
- Trump’s executive order aims to deny automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants and visitors without green cards
- Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the historical basis of universal injunctions, noting they were rare before the 1960s
- Multiple lower courts have already blocked Trump’s order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional”
- The Court’s decision, expected by early July, could dramatically alter the balance of power in the federal judiciary
The Battle Over Judicial Authority
The Supreme Court is grappling with a fundamental question about America’s balance of powers: Can a single federal judge block presidential policies across the entire nation? While President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship sparked the case, the justices are focusing not on the order’s legality but on the authority of lower courts to issue “universal injunctions” that apply nationwide. The case, Trump v. CASA, centers on Trump’s attempt to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to deny automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and visitors without green cards.
During oral arguments, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, stressed that nationwide injunctions are a relatively recent judicial development. He argued that such sweeping power in the hands of individual district judges disrupts the traditional functions of the court system and effectively gives a single judge more authority than the President of the United States on matters of national policy. The administration’s position is that only the Supreme Court should have the power to block presidential actions nationwide.
Historical Precedent and Constitutional Questions
Justice Clarence Thomas emerged as a key voice during the proceedings, pointing to the historical rarity of universal injunctions. In an exchange that cut to the heart of the case, Thomas asked Sauer about the historical precedent for such injunctions. Sauer explained that even during the contentious New Deal era, when President Roosevelt’s policies faced intense legal challenges, courts did not issue universal injunctions but rather limited remedies to the specific parties before them.
“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas questioned, highlighting the novelty of the practice in American jurisprudence. Sauer confirmed this assessment, adding: “So when the [Supreme Court] has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court.'”
The underlying birthright citizenship order itself has already been declared “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, one of several federal judges who issued injunctions blocking its implementation. These rulings cite established Supreme Court precedents, particularly the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that children born on U.S. soil automatically become citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
Implications for Presidential Power
The Trump administration’s argument extends beyond this particular case, suggesting that the increasing use of nationwide injunctions represents a significant shift in judicial power that undermines executive authority. Sauer noted that during previous administrations, challenges to policies resulted in individual injunctions affecting only the parties involved, not sweeping nationwide blocks. The administration’s concern is that universal injunctions allow judge-shopping, where opponents of a policy can file cases in favorable jurisdictions to quickly halt presidential initiatives across the country.
The justices appeared divided on potential alternatives to universal injunctions. Some considered whether class action lawsuits might offer a more structured approach to widespread relief without granting individual judges such broad power. Others questioned whether limiting injunctions to specific plaintiffs would create practical problems, potentially requiring identical litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The Court’s decision, expected by late June or early July, could fundamentally reshape how challenges to presidential policies are handled in the federal court system.
