The Supremes Give Trump the Thumbs Up

In a case prompted by, but ultimately not primarily about, the Trump Administration's effort to end birthright citizenship, the USA Supreme Court

said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent.

The court granted the Trump administration request to narrow the reach of the injunctions blocking the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order is constitutional, and the administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy, allowing time for more challenges to be filed.

In a wrongheaded and disingenuous piece for The Atlantic, Nicholas Bagley, former counsel to Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, stated "I don't see this as a partisan issue."  In eight years as President, Barack Obama issued 276 orders and in four years, President Biden signed 162. Fewer than six months into his second term, President Trump has issued 164 such orders. Not partisan, my ass.

Noting Trump v. CASA "takes away the ability of lower-court judges to issue nationwide, Elie Mystal concedes

I’m not actually a fan of nationwide injunctions. The system can be incredibly politicized. Republican judges use nationwide injunctions all the time to stymie the agenda of Democratic presidents. Democratic judges use nationwide injunctions to slow down the Trump administration. Whether a president gets to have their agenda often depends on whether the opposition party can find a friendly lower-court judge.

However

Nationwide injunctions have been a thing for a long time. The court could have addressed the issue in a myriad of other cases (including, you know, any where the Biden administration was subjected to a nationwide injunction). They chose to do so here, on this issue, where lifting the nationwide injunction will have the direct and immediate impact of letting Trump and Miller take away citizenship on a case-by-case basis....

nationwide injunctions make sense when it comes to national issues involving civil and human rights: issues like, say, the Constitution’s very clearly stated definition of national citizenship. After all, one’s fundamental rights should not wildly change if they miss their exit on the interstate.

The Court waited until a Democrat was out of the presidency and a Republican who already has called himself "King of America" was in. Moreover, as Steve M. recognizes

....the Court's Republicans know they won't try to push the boundaries of the acceptable the way Trump has.

Taking guns away from the law-abiding? That only happens in the fever dreams of Republicans. Bill Clinton was president for eight years and it didn't happen. Barack Obama was president for eight years and it didn't happen. Joe Biden was president for four years and it didn't happen. It hasn't happened in the bluest of states. Even when there have been restrictions on who can own guns or at what age a particular kind of gun can be purchased, no Democratic administration has even suggested going house to house and rounding up firearms that had previously been obtained legally. "Red flag" laws exist, but no one is being deprived of weapons without a good reason, subject to due process. And even an assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent a would-be purchaser of assault weapons from buying any other kind of gun -- or a dozen guns of other kinds -- instead.

And there simply isn't a strain of liberal legal thought that tosses the Constitution, law, and precedent out the window and says that whatever liberals want is the Framers' intention. No one who'd uphold a statewide gun confiscation program would ever be appointed to the federal bench, even if Democrats held the White House and the Senate.

And I know of no Democrats who want to deprive any religious denomination of the right to worship.

The idea that only Democrats use nationwide injunctions is false. The reason we don’t have student debt forgiveness from President Biden is because Republicans got a nationwide injunction.

This isn’t about partisanship—it’s about power and who’s willing to use it. pic.twitter.com/ZGQ6eLgWlR

— Jessica Tarlov (@JessicaTarlov) June 27, 2025

When the Supreme Court could restrain a President Biden, who needed little restraint, it chose to do so. When it faced a challenge to Trump's order to end the birthright citizenship inarguably guaranteed by the Constitution, it gave a victory on the larger issue of nationwide injunctions to a man who has called for the termination of the Constitution.

In the first 100 days of this term, President Trump had issued eight national emergency declarations, though President Biden issued only two in the same time frame, and President Obama none in the first 100 days of either of his terms. In this environment, the nation's High Court, with four far-right Justices and the intimidated Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, has elected to give Donald Trump de facto power other Presidents were not given.  And because it is Donald Trump.

It's not completely clear where this is heading, but the Supreme Court is increasingly content to give the Administration a blank check to continue its march toward tyranny. 

Share |