| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Supreme Court Nukes Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order |
| 2025-06-28 |
| [Federalist] On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful. "[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. The final decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joining Barrett in the majority. Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Known as Trump v. CASA, Inc., the matter before the high court centers around the issuance of nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s executive order seeking to end so-called "birthright citizenship." That is a concept in which any individual born on American soil is automatically granted U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment, irrespective of whether that individual’s parents are legally permitted to be in the U.S. Following a series of injunctions blocking the order’s implementation among lower courts, the Trump administration appealed to SCOTUS, asking the high court to "’restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ’purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,’" and limit "those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power." The case and Friday’s decision do not, however, determine the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order. In her majority opinion, Barrett noted that the injunctions brought before the Court "reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #18 They’re stretching like Gumby to continue the Dem political agenda. Chutkan has usurped another court’s prerogative entirely to make sure that Stacy Abrams gets paid. They are operatives wearing a skin suit of the judiciary. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-06-28 22:43 |
| #17 14^ or a flurry of basically identical cases in multiple district courts |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2025-06-28 22:00 |
| #16 Well said, 49 Pan. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-06-28 20:48 |
| #15 In the midst of this banter and court findings, our SC is cleaning up the seams cut into our constitution by the left. Our constitution will be stronger because of Trump and what he is doing. We will get to live a clearer definition of our republic for decades thanks to him. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2025-06-28 19:11 |
| #14 Sounds like the new strategy will be to formulate a really Brad class for a class action suit. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-06-28 18:14 |
| #13 She's basically saying that because DJT is "lawless" any judge anywhere can issue an injunction against his "lawless" conduct. Lady if they were lawless you would never see the light of day again. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2025-06-28 15:00 |
| #12 In 2022 Justice Kagan said "“This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process" My, how she's changed. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2025-06-28 12:51 |
| #11 Breitbart Business Digest: The Supreme Court Just Torpedoed the Legal War on Tariffs |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-06-28 11:55 |
| #10 The federal judges will all simultaneously adopt a new tactic communicated to them ex parte. This insurrection is not grass roots. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-06-28 11:53 |
| #9 ^Ideology is a mind killer. |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-06-28 11:40 |
| #8 Brown's opinion is just appalling. She's basically saying that because DJT is "lawless" any judge anywhere can issue an injunction against his "lawless" conduct. So if Judge Boasberg is sitting in his pajamas reading the Sunday NYT and sees something that offends his sensibilities, he doesn't have to wait for anyone to file suit -- he can just fire off an injunction. Who needs an adversary system? |
| Posted by: Matt 2025-06-28 11:03 |
| #7 Not a bad way to wrap up Pride Month Pride comes before a fall |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-06-28 10:26 |
| #6 Not only BRC... but also Opt-out-of-LGBti&etc bilge! Not a bad way to wrap up Pride Month (what ever there hell THAT is) 🤗 |
| Posted by: hyper 2025-06-28 09:10 |
| #5 Oops I meant to write "6" instead of "5" |
| Posted by: Snakes Thrumble3930 2025-06-28 08:32 |
| #4 Five US Supreme Court justices have stooped to doing what the US Congress is too inert to bother with. |
| Posted by: Snakes Thrumble3930 2025-06-28 08:32 |
| #3 Don Surber: ITEM 2: Chief Justice John Roberts finally let a female justice—ACB—write a major decision. It immediately turned into a catfight, “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. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” KBJ replied, “This is why no one sits with you at lunch.” ACB responded, “This is why Roberts makes you write your dissents in crayon.” ITEM 3: Just to be clear, ACB wrote it but 5 colleagues kept it in. The new kid just isn’t fitting in. As for the decision, it stayed the execution of most injunctions issued by lowly district judges who have a superiority complex that makes surgeons roll their eyes. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2025-06-28 07:42 |
| #2 The Federalist - Justice Barrett Takes A Flamethrower To KBJ’s Reality-Challenged Dissent In Birthright Citizenship Case |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-06-28 05:05 |
| #1 I was pretty sue it was gong to be a great year, but it just keeps getting better! |
| Posted by: Oregon Dave 2025-06-28 01:37 |