Source: theconversation.com 5/15/25
When one judge blocks a president’s policies nationwide, alarm bells ring. Should a single judge wield this much power? Can they halt policies across the entire country after just a quick first look at whether they might be illegal? The Supreme Court now faces these critical questions.
In a lively session on May 15, 2025, filled with justices’ questions that at times interrupted the attorneys appearing before them, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the provision in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that says all children born in the United States are granted citizenship.
While the underlying lawsuit involves birthright citizenship, the immediate question before the court was about a legal tool called a “nationwide preliminary injunction.” This allows a single federal judge to temporarily halt presidential policies across the entire country – even before fully considering whether those policies are constitutional.
Three judges had stopped the president’s attempt to deny birthright citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States. It was the Trump administration’s appeal of those injunctions that was argued before the justices on May 15, with the administration asserting that “universal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” and that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue them.
The justices also grappled with a key question: How much should judges consider whether a policy is likely constitutional when deciding whether to issue these temporary blocks? The National Immigration Law Center, which supports the use of nationwide injunctions, wrote in its filing with the court that granting the administration’s request to bar such injunctions would “tie the hands of the judicial branch in the face of unlawful executive action.”
What exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?
Take away judicial power to overrule the president and you have a dictatorship..
The definition of a dictatorship is ‘Absolute or despotic control or power.’
This is why we have 3 branches of the government and a system of checks and balances.
Our founding forefathers weren’t dumb when they established this and it’s almost always trouble and disarray when Congress or leaders try to change what has been established in our Constitution as we on the registry are suffering now and fighting to restore our Constitutional rights.
After listening to lawyers discuss the nationwide injunction issue that was being argued in this case, my first thought was I hope nothing comes out of this that will negatively effect any possible court injunctions regarding the federal SORNA case.
Yes, I see where you’re going with this, but SORNA – and the very real political fallout from tampering with it’s machinations – is a can of worms they don’t want to touch.
Lemme see…one person can write an Executive Order and expect it to be carried out nationally, but one judge should not be able to stop it nationally because they are not part of the same branch or have the same power as the initial author? With the way the current judicial system is, that is how it works. You cannot go straight to SCOTUS all the time every time an EO or law is passed which is challenged. If that needs to be the situation, then set up a side court with 9 randomly selected federal judicial members who review these and only these while holding the item in question in abeyance until opined upon.
If tech can make video conferences so easy to be had, then any federal judge in the judicial system should be able to be assigned to a case regardless of who they are and where they are from. This is part of the “other duties as assigned” clause of the work signed up for. I don’t care what federal level they are, i.e. district or appellate because if you are good at one level, you are good for both, the legal brainpower is there. Every judge is numerical (like a lottery ball) and the machine spits them out to empanel the judicial panel to hear such a matter, so no judge shopping happens (which is not new) and the judge who is in the middle of the seniority range is chosen as the chief judge to hear the matter. From Guam to Puerto Rico, Maine to Alaska, the nation is covered by a very huuuuge pool of potential legal members to do this function.
I do find it interesting that Congress is looking to get involved in more than just approving or rejecting potential court appointees. Must be hard considering they will be impacted by their action related to it.
Where are the executive and judicial branches comment boxes?
This impact of this case could have on any nationwide injunction against SORNA could be possible depending on who you ask…
The Supreme Court May Rule for Trump on Nationwide Injunctions but Probably Not on Birthright Citizenship (Reason.com 15 May 2025)
I find their argument to be lacking. When they were challenging Biden and Obama’s executive actions they were all for preliminary nationwide injunctions, now that its being used against their president suddenly they are ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘tying the hands of the executive branch’.