How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
This was an interesting topic and as usual I will weigh in with my opinion.
I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.
The Trump administration wants through an executive order to blatantly change the explicit words and meaning of the 14th amendment regarding birthright citizenship.
He wants to limit the injunction to the specific jurisdiction where the complainant is involved.
So,how does this work, are we expecting the victims of Trumps executive order to have to sue and arrange to have every similar violation challenged individually in varied federal courts across the land?
Challenges to birthright citizenship have been shot down in court rulings in the past, why should it stand now? If conservatives are so anxious to change this, arrange a Constitutional Convention to have the Amendment properly amended as provided by law.
If we do this Trumps way, who knows how many would be affected or how long the abuses would be allowed to continue while waiting for a case to meander through the appellate court processes to the Supreme Court. How many people are harmed in the meantime.
So, I take a resounding stand against Trump and his scheme regarding this issue.I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.
I wonder - if conservative judges were even half as "activist" as liberal ones if you would keep that same attitude when we have a liberal President. My guess is "No", whether you would admit it or not.Conservative justices are just as activist as liberals, it just depends on the issues involved. The trump administrations manner since his inauguration is proof plenty in that regard.
These universal injunctions were used against Obama and Biden, yet conservatives did not bat an eyebrow, then.
Your guess is incorrect as it is most of the time. Conservative, particularly in the age of Trump sucks in terms of ideology and policy in my opinion and I wont deny that.
The difference is that our folks are clearly not inappropriately trying to ignore or change the law, or shoot the referee to attain to our desired ends, your folks are.Here is the problem,
All federal courts in the United States are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that they hear only cases for which jurisdiction is authorized by the United States constitution or federal statutes.
It isn't right for a judge with limited jurisdiction to make a ruling that impacts the entire country. They should only be able to make rulings that impact their jurisdiction.IT Is right, Mike. Say that Trump issued the redefinition of citizenship merely through his Executive Order, clearly in conflict with the tenets of the Constitution, a universal injunction prevents this obvious violation to not remain uncorrected in every other jurisdiction outside of the where the injunction was made. Such a ruling DOES affect the entire country, Mike, and it should.
So trump will have months to years to violate the law adversely affecting who knows how many people, until the issue gets to the Supreme Court? No, that is unacceptable We need a check on the possible abuse of executive power and the universal injunction is a tool in that tool box.You do understand that his EO's are not "clearly" in violation? That they are not an "obvious" violation? That they are not an absolute "violation" of the law?
That those are merely the result of TDS and hatred? That your hatred of the man should never be allowed to dictate what he can or cannot do? That any conclusions arrived at during such an episode (100% of the time when considering politics) is worthless as being formed from a bias rather than facts and truth?
Not that I necessarily disagree that at least federal judges (and perhaps all of them) should be able to shove a stick in the spokes of his juggernaut. But then I also find that the actions of Democrats in general, when it comes to anything Trump says or does, is completely reprehensible and coming from the same place as your mistaken conclusions. Hatred and bias, in other words, coupled with the demand that ONLY liberals control the power in the country. That liberals routinely challenge, in court, any action at all by Trump is stupid beyond belief and as reprehensible as the worst of what he is doing.Do you need a refresher in civics, Wilderness, obviously you do?
What did he issue the EO for? Did it not say that being born in the United States was no longer a guarantee of citizenship? It IS a violation.
Trump plays along the margins of the law and is basically a Morlock that is bold until you put a lit torch before it. It is “catch me, if you can”. It wont be my loathing of this man that will stop him, it will be courts that will have had enough of his bulls***. He is a President not a King, he can’t break the law, can you appreciate the difference?
You are a hardcore right winger, I don’t expect you to see the other side and I communicate with you with that understanding in mind at all times.
You and your kind, have attacked Biden incessantly, and trump has proven to be a far greater threat, so yes, refer to me in any manner that you wish. And Yes, Republicans suck and I will do everything possible, tooth and nail, to get them out of office and keep them out.
So, how are dem apples?"What did he issue the EO for?"
I don't know and you did not specify. Instead you spoke as if every one of his actions is illegal with no need for proof, evidence or reasoning. Thus the reply I made.
Yes, Trump operates on the fringes of the law. Do you think he would be effective doing everything safely down the middle of the road, so to speak? No possibility of crossing the line? My opinion is as above: liberals will attack everything he does regardless of legality, and if he isn't right at the edge he will get nothing done. Example: give M31 members a "fair trial" and they will be in the country for years to come with delays, appeals, and every possible delaying tactic that 100 million liberals can conceive of. They will be free to walk the streets and they will not be deported for a decade, if that. THAT is the desire of liberals...mostly because Trump is removing them. If THEY had had the guts to oppose the bleeding hearts and do it themselves it would be fine: if Trump does it it will NOT be allowed to proceed.
LOL Your "hardcore rightwinger" is anyone right of center left. Even center is "hardcore right" to someone from the far left.
Dem apples are as expected; you will do everything to restrict Trump and any conservative action you can, regardless of what it is or what it will do to the people, the country or the world. It could provide everyone in the world with unlimited food and you would oppose it because it comes from a conservative. If it comes from Trump you will become virulent, figuratively frothing at the mouth at the very thought that Trump might accomplish something."Example: give M31 members a "fair trial" and they will be in the country for years to come with delays, appeals, and every possible delaying tactic that 100 million liberals can conceive of."
Don't you expect to receive a fair trial and due process or is just reserved for those without a dusky hue? People are not just being moved around at your convenience and comfort levels, they have rights and I will support their right to that as if I were one of them.
AND NO, he will not be allowed to proceed contrary to Constitutional law, and I don't care what he wants.
Yes, I will will resist Trump as he has nothing in my opinion to redeem him. I will wait for him to trip up and he won't disappoint. When he crosses the margins you talk about, our side will be waiting to hold him accountable.
Rightwing ideology and philosophy can only be malevolent at its core. What has Trump done? He has threatened the very foundation of our democratic governance, and can expect nothing from me at this point.
I guess that that is my opinion.....
I disagree.
A judge does not have the authority to make rulings on things outside their jurisdiction.
That is the law.
Federal judges who issue these nationwide orders are rogue judges who are asserting their authority beyond what is permitted by law.
The ONLY court that has the authority over the entire country is the Supreme Court. That is how it has been since the founding of the United States.
In the American system of government it is the US Congress delegated with the responsibility of keeping the president in line. That is NOT the job of the judiciary.
Have you ever read the federalist papers?There is no clear statement in the Federalist Papers that nationwide injunctions by district judges are illegal.
"In the American system of government it is the US Congress delegated with the responsibility of keeping the president in line. That is NOT the job of the judiciary"
No, one of the core responsibilities of the judicial branch is review the legislative and executive branches, to determine whether they violate constitutional principles.I agree, I think Trump will win on this one. Federal judges who issue these nationwide orders are rogue judges who are asserting their authority beyond what is permitted by law. The ONLY court that has the authority over the entire country is the Supreme Court. That is how it has been since the founding of the United States.
So without nationwide injunctions, people would potentially continue to have their rights violated by a contested order while the case makes its way to the Supreme Court? That makes sense?
It seems you may not have fully understood the context of my comment. The concern isn't about whether individuals might be impacted while a case moves through the courts; it's about who has the authority to issue broad, nationwide injunctions.
Federal district judges are assigned to specific jurisdictions, typically within one state or a small region. Their legal authority is generally limited to that jurisdiction. When a single district judge issues a nationwide injunction, affecting people far outside their district, it raises serious constitutional and legal concerns. Many legal scholars and even Supreme Court justices have pointed out that this overreach undermines the normal appellate process and gives one judge the power to set national policy, something they were never intended to do.
These so-called "rogue judges" aren't simply protecting rights within their court's boundaries; they’re asserting authority across the entire country, often based on ideological motives. That’s not how the judicial system is supposed to function.
If rights are being violated, cases should proceed through the appropriate legal channels, district, appellate, and eventually the Supreme Court, within the structure of jurisdictional authority.
As I said, I think Trump will have a win on this one. I will be shocked if the Supream Court does not rule in his favor.Again, as a challenged order moves through the court system, it is okay that rights continue to be potentially violated during that time?
Yes, in my view, federal judges should rule only on matters within their appointed districts, period. Each federal district judge has the authority to make decisions specific to their jurisdiction, and that’s how our system was designed. The court system is built on strong checks and balances, and assigning judges to specific districts is a key part of that structure. Federal judges do not have the right to impose rulings that apply nationwide. I have faith that the Supreme Court will eventually issue a clear decision on this matter, one that sets a firm precedent and reinforces the limits of judicial reach.
A Federal Judge can legally only potentially rule on violations in their appointed district.
C-SPAN has a recording of the hearings on the matter."Yes, in my view, federal judges should rule only on matters within their appointed districts, period....
But Trump is asking for individual decisions, no universal injunctions. They contend that injunctions should only apply to the specific plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits, allowing the administration to implement the policy elsewhere while legal challenges continue....
So again as Justice Kagan states in the following hypothetical:
"A new president orders that because there's so much gun violence going on in the country and he says, 'I have the right to take away the guns from everyone,' and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns."
Kagan questioned whether courts would have to wait for individual lawsuits from every gun owner before ruling on the order's constitutionality under a system without nationwide injunctions.
So, following the administration's logic and stated by Justice Jackson.. EVERYONE has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating their rights?
Should the government be allowed to enforce potentially unlawful actions against individuals who haven't sued?
Suppose that your city council adopts an ordinance banning political signs but not real-estate signs on residential lawns. That’s a classic content-based restriction on speech. If you sue and appeal to the First Amendment in federal court, you’ll have the city dead to rights. But would your victory help your neighbors? That depends on the scope of the court’s order (injunction). If it only orders the city not to apply the law to you, then it can still enforce the unconstitutional law against anyone else. But if the injunction says the city can’t generally enforce the law, then your neighbors will benefit from the universal injunction.
Well, Mike
Of course you disagree. But these kinds of abuses are why I can never support conservatives as they have an inherent attitude against fair play and justice.
But honestly, if Trump issues an EO ending birthright citizenship, as if it were a law issued by Congress as even they cannot issue such a law clearly in conflict with the Constitution, why should that be allowed to stand for ANY period of time?
I think that it is necessary for someone to call Trump on a clearly illegal EO rather than allow this dastardly man to continue in illegality affecting thousands if not more. What defense do those not directly party to a partial injunction where violations are identical outside the jurisdiction of the ruling judge have? I see Trump playing the system to exploit and abuse as many as possible until the Supreme Court finally, who knows how long, attends to the case.
I find that reprehensible and loath the man just that much more for his malevolent intent.
So Trump can abuse the EO and say and edict anything he wishes, legal or no and we all have to just wait for the correction?
I trust the Supreme Court will figure all this out. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing a significant case involving former President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. This case not only addresses the constitutionality of the executive order but also delves into the broader issue of federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions that can block presidential actions across the entire country.
In my view, he may lose on the birthright issue, but I believe he will ultimately score a win when it comes to reining in the power of federal judges. This president was sent to Washington with a clear mandate--- he never minced words. The courts should not be allowed to prevent him from keeping his promises.Well, I think that he MUST lose on the birthright issue as what he is advocating conflicts with Constitutional law. the court can be accused of dereliction of duty if they fail to rule otherwise.
Executive orders are not public laws issued by Congress, the only entity with authority to make law. I don’t care about Trumps mandate, he is required to operation within the guardrails established by our laws and not go outside of them, mandate or no. He is free to make and keep promises as long as he stays within the boundaries of law as defined by our Constitution. And our federal courts are the current judge of that.
I am waiting for him to get into a drag out, knock out battle with the courts and the entire judicial branch. Either he comes to heel or be identified clearly as a tyrant if he does not comply with their rulings. tyrants are impeached or otherwise eliminated. There will be no mistaken it then, most certainly.
Cred,
I'm sure that it was well understood what was going to happen to this executive order when it was signed.
The attorneys working for President Donald trump all know you can't change birthright citizenship unless the constitution is changed.
What this executive order does is gets people to discuss the issue. It makes people aware of the problem of birthright citizenship.
As I've said before, I wasn't born in the United States. I am an American citizen because both of my parents were American citizens. That is how it is done in many other countries.
Birthright citizenship has been taken advantage of by many people and in many ways.Birthright citizenship, the merits of the constitutional case is not what is being challenged here. Trump wants to strike down nationwide judicial injunction. That is the matter before SCOTUS,. But as it relates to birthright citizenship, if given his way, we would see a baby born in say New Jersey given citizenship while another born in Mississippi at the same time would not and be slated for deportation....
Mike, why did Trump do this? Did he decide to challenge the court and the immutable language of the 14th amendment just to make a point?
I remember conservatives complaining about liberals wanting to dispense with the Electoral College, you folks virtually had a cow over it.
If birthright citizenship is the problem, the law prescribes the only way to change it, let us abide by it. Let the President of the US, Chief Executive Officer, get on board and support and not dance around the proper application of the law.
Trump is asking SCOTUS to allow the the enforcement of illegal orders against anyone who fails to sue to stop them.
If courts cannot stop the government’s illegal actions until the Supreme Court has decided they are illegal...a process that can take years, if the case ever reaches the nine justices, then the government would be free to do essentially whatever it wanted to anyone unable to sue or possibly join a class action lawsuit. It transforms the justice system from one which stops illegal government activity into one that can only provide a "whack-a-mole" relief to those who can stand up and ask for it.... As well as pay for it.
It’s an odd vision of the justice system, isn't it? Imagine this analogy...the police identify a serial thief. He’s targeting neighborhoods at night all across the country. Rather than lock him up, the thief simply promises to skip the homes that have called the police to complain and obtained a restraining order. Until a jury convicts him, everyone else keeps getting robbed.
That’s what Trump is asking for: the ability to run roughshod over the Constitution and the law and not just on this question of citizenship, but on any illegal or rights-depriving scheme he can think of...until the case somehow reaches the Supreme Court
As Justice Kagan stated... “I noticed that you didn’t take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. I mean, why would you take the substantive question to us? You’re losing a bunch of cases. This guy here, this woman over here, they’ll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?”
In other words, the Trump administration can win by losing. If the losing party, the government, accepts individual losses and never appeals, then it wins by applying the order to everyone without a lawyer...which is most people, especially among immigrant populations fearful of deportation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summed it up...
"Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights, I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”
Let's just hope that there are not five votes among the justices to end nationwide injunctions outright. Doing so would be a radical departure from the law and would
subject the country to every illegal fantasy Trump and his crew can think up.Well said, I hope that SCOTUS recognizes the universal injunction as a necessary check on abuse of power from the Executive branch that is usurping the roles of both the Legislative and Judicial branches at this time.
Funny, the exact opposite is being done.
The Judicial branch is being used and abused to restrict and undermine the Executive Office and the President's ability to control the country.
If you are looking to destroy a nation's ability to self-govern, if you are looking for the ability to counter the People, their ability to direct change in their government... the People's ability to choose their leaders and alter the course of the nation away from what 'the Party' or 'the oligarchy' or the 'International authority' wants it to do...
This is a fight for control and power over the people and to undermine their ability to protect their freedoms and their liberties...
How strong is this corrupt bureaucratic government made up of powerful unelected agencies and authorities?
How absolute will the control become over what media informs and what information is available to those searching online?
If they can neuter the most visible and vocal President ever elected with minor judges and miscreant AGs and DAs... they can effectively neuter any representation that arises from the people or that enjoys overwhelming public sympathy and support.
They can control the nation and the laws that are chosen to be enforced... they can strip the will of the people from the people... they can destroy and erode the persons and pillars of society from within that are supporting and strengthening the Nation, through the very devices meant to give them support and protect them from such corruption.Ken, in the history of this Government, which President has ever challenged and threatened to ignore Supreme Court rulings as the law of the land? the will of the people is that the Constitution is sacrosanct and ignoring it or deviating from it tenets is a sign of danger. The President does not control the country, the people do, with the Constitution as the guide as to how that is done.
the one that defies the Constitution and its precepts first, self identifies as a tyrant."the one that defies the Constitution and its precepts first, self identifies as a tyrant."
Mmmm. That would be Democrats, for they decided years ago that the Constitution means whatever they wish it to mean - that it is malleable and changeable anytime they find it in their way. It is a "living document", changing as necessary to support what liberals would like to "progress" towards. Tyrannical barely touches on it.
Well said. The Democrat party is making a stand, basing their existence on their ability to exercise near absolute control over the nation.
Time will tell if they are to exist a decade from now and in any form we would recognize.
I have been following this case and can’t wait to see how the Supreme Court handles it. It will set important precedent either way. I listened to some of the Justices’ questions on C-SPAN, and it’s clear that the legal issues involved are more complex than some of the commentary suggests.
The central issue isn’t whether illegal government actions should be allowed to continue unchecked, but rather whether a single district court judge should have the authority to block a federal policy across the entire country based on one case. That’s a long-standing legal debate, and it didn’t begin with Trump. Courts have historically granted relief to the plaintiffs in a case, not to every person who might be affected. The broader question is whether nationwide injunctions are consistent with our system of checks and balances.
The analogy about a thief continuing to rob homes unless each homeowner files their own restraining order may sound vivid, but it doesn’t really reflect how the legal system works. The government’s actions are subject to oversight by multiple courts, and legal challenges often move quickly, especially in high-profile cases. If a policy is unlawful, courts can, and often do, strike it down or limit its enforcement. That doesn’t mean people have no recourse; it means that the judicial system provides remedies in a structured and orderly way.
Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson raised thoughtful concerns about the practical effects of limiting nationwide injunctions, and those concerns are worth taking seriously. But it’s also important to recognize that there are constitutional and procedural questions on the other side. Giving a single judge the power to halt a federal policy nationwide raises real issues about judicial overreach and consistency in the application of the law.
Ultimately, this case isn’t about granting unchecked power to any president. It’s about clarifying the proper role of the courts in our system of government. The outcome will matter not just for this administration, but for all future ones, regardless of party. That’s why it deserves careful consideration without jumping to extreme conclusions.
So, this is how the pouting toddler reacts to the 7-2 vote against him bagging just anyone and sending them abroad without due process.
https://news.yahoo.com/news/trump-share … 02277.htmlJustice Elena Kagan asked solicitor general Sauer whether limiting nationwide injunctions would create an incentive for the government to never appeal to the Supreme Court. If the government loses in the lower courts but is still able to carry out acts against people who didn’t file lawsuits, why would the government give the Supreme Court a chance to issue a final ruling on the constitutionality of the action.
She used this hypothetical: "A new president orders that because there's so much gun violence going on in the country and he says, 'I have the right to take away the guns from everyone,' and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns."
So, following the administration's logic and stated by Justice Jackson.. EVERYONE has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating their rights?Let's look at some of the conservative commentary from scotus...
Several of the conservatives questioned what to do, in the meantime, with Trump’s policy, which appears to conflict directly with the text of the 14th Amendment.
Gorsuch, at one point, ruminated about the “patchwork problems” of allowing enforcement in some parts of the country but not others. Kavanaugh pressed Sauer about “how it’s going to work” if the president’s order is allowed to take effect.
Barrett seemed concerned about what avenue will allow plaintiffs to temporarily halt a policy or law that violated the constitution.
She challenged Sauer..."Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?”
How would this be reconciled?Today---
Today the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States. This decision lifts a prior federal court injunction that had blocked the administration's attempt to end TPS protections, which were initially granted by the Biden administration.
The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson being the sole noted dissenter. While the ruling allows the administration to proceed with revoking TPS, it does not immediately invalidate work permits or deportation protections, which were previously extended through October 2026.
Consequently, there is no public record of statements or questions from the justices during hearings, as no oral arguments were held in this expedited process. The decision was based on written submissions from the parties involved.Willow, While nationwide injunctions may seem like an efficient way to block harmful government actions broadly, they raise serious concerns about judicial overreach and fairness. By applying rulings universally, courts essentially create policy that affects people who haven’t even had their day in court, undermining the principle that lawsuits should only bind the parties involved. This can lead to a small group of plaintiffs effectively controlling the rights of millions, limiting the government’s ability to enforce laws and policies in areas where challenges haven’t been raised.
Justice Jackson’s point underscores the risk that without limiting injunctions, courts could become a de facto policy-making body, bypassing the legislative and executive branches. Moreover, requiring individual lawsuits respects the traditional adversarial process and ensures that courts address concrete disputes rather than hypothetical or generalized claims. It also encourages more precise tailoring of remedies to specific harms rather than broad bans that may sweep in individuals unaffected by the challenged action. In this light, limiting injunctions to the parties involved preserves the balance of powers, prevents forum shopping, and ensures that judicial decisions don’t impose sweeping changes based on incomplete information or limited evidence.
In my view, blanketing causes problems in most cases it is used.So you agree with the idea of cases being brought one by one?
If the next president decides to confiscate guns, then you can only regain your constitutional right to bear arms if you personally sue? And since the injunction in your case would not be universal, the decision would only apply to you. Hence giving you a constitutional right that your neighbor wouldn't have until he brings a suit. That makes sense?
How then do we protect those who might not be able to sue individually?
As I see it, there is a simple, but powerful reason why courts must have the power to issue such injunctions, at least in some cases. In many situations, there is no other way to stop widespread illegality, especially that perpetrated by the federal government. Nationwide wrongs require a nationwide remedy. My guess is that the court will put some limits on universal injunctions, impose stricter tests for their use but they will not be struck down completely. And the illegality of the birthright citizenship question will comfortably fall right into those new parameters.Yes... and here is why.
I appreciate your view, but I think your argument, while passionate, misunderstands both how constitutional rights function and what the real issue is with nationwide injunctions.
No one is saying that people must individually "regain" their constitutional rights through lawsuits. Rights aren't granted or restored by courts, they exist inherently under the Constitution. Courts recognize and enforce those rights in specific cases. So, if a president hypothetically tried to confiscate guns, a single lawsuit challenging that action could absolutely lead to a broader legal precedent that others could rely on. And if the issue is as serious as a constitutional violation of that magnitude, it would almost certainly rise to an appellate or Supreme Court ruling quickly, binding nationwide.
What you're suggesting is that without universal injunctions, Americans are left defenseless unless they individually sue. But that's not how our system works. Our legal process allows courts to set precedent, and once something is ruled unconstitutional by higher courts, it becomes binding across the country. That's the safeguard, not district court judges issuing blanket rulings that apply far beyond their jurisdiction.
The concern here isn’t whether courts can stop government wrongdoing, of course they can and should. The issue is how they do it. The current practice of issuing nationwide injunctions allows a single district judge, often handpicked in a favorable jurisdiction, to unilaterally block federal policy for the entire country. That is deeply problematic in a system built on the separation of powers and regional judicial review.
You also ask how we protect people who can’t sue. That’s a fair concern, but there are established legal mechanisms, like class actions and consolidation of similar cases, that allow courts to provide broader relief while still respecting due process and judicial boundaries. We don’t need judicial overreach to ensure justice, we need smart procedural tools used properly. We do not need Federal judges overstepping legal boundaries, trying to promote their ideologies, and interfering with a president's agenda--- we have a Congress that can do that.
Your claim or perhaps your view that "nationwide wrongs require a nationwide remedy" sounds neat, but it opens the door to severe abuse. It invites forum shopping and inconsistent policy whiplash, where one judge in Texas or California effectively controls national law until appeals courts reverse or narrow their decision. That’s not how our system was designed to work.
Justice Jackson is right to be wary. Courts exist to interpret the law, not to govern the nation by decree. A properly restrained judiciary respects the need for a full and fair process, and that means limiting injunctions to the parties before the court, unless and until broader rulings are warranted by appellate review.
So yes, I do support limiting nationwide injunctions. Not because I think people shouldn’t be protected, but because I believe the judicial process itself, when followed, is what protects us best."No one is saying that people must individually "regain" their constitutional rights through lawsuits.
But this is exactly what the Trump Administration is saying. They are asking SCOTUS to allow the the enforcement of illegal orders against anyone who fails to sue to stop them. Their entire argument is based on the idea that universal injunctions should be limited to the specific plaintiffs who sued, not applied nationwide. Yes so that while a few may bring suit and the administration will lose those cases but while they are losing they are continuing to violate the birthright citizenship protections under the constitution of others who are unable to sue...
In other words, the Trump administration can win by losing. If the losing party, (the government) accepts individual losses and never appeals, then it wins by applying the order to everyone without a lawyer...
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is wary, yes... Of the Trump administration. She stated...
"Your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view at least, into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights, I don’t understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law.”
If we have a case by case, one by one determination of these cases, how people's rights are potentially violated during the time it takes for a case to meet its final resolution with scotus? I don't find that to be a great solution.
I'm certain there will be a remedy and universal injunctions will remain.
This would be a very different story if a president came in and declared he or she was confiscating guns...lol folks would feel the same about universal injunction? It would be just fine to clog up the courts into Infinity to get the right to bear arms back?
"We do not need Federal judges overstepping legal boundaries, trying to promote their ideologies, and interfering with a president's agenda---"
Even when that agenda is unconstitutional? Such as denying birthright citizenship.A properly restrained judiciary respects the need for a full and fair process, and that means limiting injunctions to the parties before the court, unless and until broader rulings are warranted by appellate review.
———
And how long do we all have to wait until an illegal Trump EO is challenged through this appellate court system?
As a result, I clearly side with federal courts issuing universal injunctions as a protection against abuse by the legislative and executive branches of the Government, a not accommodate a dictatorial abuse by Trump or anyone else.
Related Discussions
- 561
Trump, the Art of the Deal, Negotiations 101 & Tariffs
by Tim Mitchell 2 days ago
Negotiations Expert Explains Why Trump Fails To Get Deals Done at Daily Kos (Mar 7, 2025)https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3 … -Get-DealsAn intro to Distributive Bargaining (Trump) vs. Integrative BargainingThoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 3 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 90
The 9th circuit court just ruled against Trump and the American people
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
This ruling is an over reach by our courts to co opt the powers of the Executive branch.When did our courts and judges stop reading our Constitution? They are suppose to rule based on the Constitution, instead they have rewritten the Constitution for political expediency. My prediction is: If a...
- 101
`Anchor Babies` and "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
by ga anderson 9 years ago
The controversy over birthright citizenship, (aka `Anchor babies`), seems to one of interpretation.Specifically, the 2nd hurdle to citizenship the 14th Amendment included; that the mother must be; "...subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." It appears that there are two...
- 40
How to limit Growing Executive Power?
by ptosis 8 years ago
The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted."Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general were exploring the possibility of legal action. “There may be grounds for a...
- 113
Ending Birthright Citizenship - Finally A Common Sense Idea
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
President Trump is taking action on immigration due to decades of failure by Congress. He plans on issuing an Executive Order to remove citizenship for babies born within the US border by non-citizens or illegal aliens known as "anchor babies." This action is guaranteed to be...