On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court delved into a case that could reshape the landscape of birthright citizenship and the power of federal courts. In Trump v. CASA, Justice Clarence Thomas posed a question that underscored the crux of the dispute: "So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?" His query during the oral arguments highlighted the court's examination of the long-standing legal practice against the backdrop of a controversial executive order by President Donald Trump.
The case before the justices hinges on whether federal district courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, effectively blocking presidential policies across the entire country. This particular legal battle was sparked by an executive order issued by President Trump on his first day back in office in January, reinterpreting the 14th Amendment to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil.
The historical nature of nationwide injunctions was a focal point during the hearing. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer confirmed Justice Thomas's observation, noting that such injunctions were "very limited, very rare" even in the 1960s and that they "really exploded in 2007." This statement came in response to a staggering statistic revealed by Sauer: District court judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions against Trump's policies in just the past four months.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have significant implications. Not only will it determine the fate of Trump's executive order, but it will also set a precedent for the extent of the lower courts' power in issuing injunctions that have nationwide effects. The executive order in question has already been met with legal challenges, and federal district courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, have upheld injunctions stopping its implementation.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed for alternatives to nationwide injunctions, suggesting the justices' discomfort with the status quo. Sauer proposed class action lawsuits as a solution under existing federal court rules, which would allow a judge to define a specific class of individuals affected by the case's outcome.
The historical context provided by Sauer drew parallels to the Roosevelt administration, noting that even during fervent challenges to nationwide policies, universal injunctions were not the recourse taken. Instead, "hundreds of injunctions protecting individual plaintiffs" were issued.
Amid the legal discourse, President Trump took to Truth Social, criticizing the current birthright citizenship policy and calling for an end to "rewarding illegal entry with automatic citizenship." His post emphasized that birthright citizenship was initially about the children of slaves and implied that the current policy is being exploited.
Court watchers remain on edge, with no clear indication of how the justices will rule. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog reported a divide among the high court over the judge's power to block the executive order while it is under legal review. The court's decision, expected in the coming months, will undoubtedly leave a lasting impact on the executive branch's authority and immigration policy.
