SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump

The Federalist ^ | 5/19/25 | Margot Cleveland

[CFW]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions—-the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump.

“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument, referring to the Trump Administration’s EO on birthright citizenship. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from — universally from violating that holding — those holdings by this Court,” Justice Sotomayor further charged. “[W]hy should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action,” the justice pushed, when a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.

Justice Kagan likewise framed the question for the Court as how to promptly halt the implementation of a president’s EO which is “dead wrong” on the law. “[E]very court has ruled against you” on the birthright citizenship question, she intoned to Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

“If one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” Kagan further questioned the Trump Administration.

[CFW]

Good piece by Margot Cleveland.

[CFW]

The premise of Margot’s piece:

“From a legal perspective, the two liberal justices have it entirely backwards: The legal question for the justices was not how do courts accomplish their goal of stopping Trump without nationwide injunctions, but rather, do courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions?”

[chajin]

Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson: the legal issue is never the overriding issue, the overriding issue is always the revolution.

[hanamizu]

I hope, in arguing this case that Trump’s lawyers will point out that many American Indians, born on U.S. soil did not get citizenship until Congress passed a law granting it in the 1920s. If the 14th did not apply to Indians, why would it apply to illegals who give birth in the U.S.?

[packrat35]

Excellent point. That law was passed after WW1 where many indians served with distinction and were always born here, not some body who jumped the border to give birth.

[Dr. Sivana]

How many times did we have the merits and urgency on election issues and law violations, and were told “You don’t have standing?”

It doesn’t matter if the justices think Trump is issuing bad EOs. Changing jurisdiction is a political issue, not one for district courts to deal with on a nationwide basis.

[protoconservative]

The liberal justices have a easy thing to do. Make it about nationwide injunctions from a circuit court and get out of ruling on the issue for another 18 months. If you want to limit the federal courts power from the bench your bench best be SCOTUS, or the issue not worth fighting.

A circuit court case goes great for something like fishing rights, or a EPA issue on a specific ruling. At some point the court will actually have a call to action to get the legislature to write exactly out the will of the congress.

I really want congress to define all the methods to citizenship in a single bill, send it to the president to sign. Make all sides take sides and the stronger argument to the american people will win.

[bigbob]

That’s exactly the right question and one that absolutely needs to be answered. But this SCOTUS has proven itself to be cowardly when it comes to addressing many major questions that affect the power of the judiciary and/or which have political implications.

I look for them to punt, again.

[sauropod]

bkmk

[Mouton]

It’s ironic that district criminal court decisions apply solely to that district and the same for the circuit courts BUT district injunctions apply from sea to Guam.

[Jacquerie]

Since at least Brown v. Board of Education, the 14A horribly evolved in the hands of Leftist judges into a bottomless well from which to corrupt/destroy American society and our republic.

[dandiegirl]

Good point. Do you think Trump lawyers are good enough for arguing in front of SCOTUS? This is such a great point, why haven’t they brought this up.

[packrat35]

I don’t know and I am not a lawyer so I would try to give advise to another lawyer...

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article CFW.

"SCOTUS Oral Argument In Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump"

---

Noting that there are some twists and turns in the history of the law below, the original birthright citizenship law of the land associated with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the law effectively prohibiting such citizenship imo, is the following.

• "14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born [all emphases added] or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

• "CRA1866 [, Sec. 1:] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding." --From Civil Rights Act of 1866." —THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sass. I. CH. 31. 1866. 27 CHAP. X (CRA1866)

Note that international law at the time said that the newborn inherits the citizenship of the father no matter where the newborn is born.

The bottom line is that if it weren't for the misguided (imo) Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, this birthright case should never have made it to the Supreme Court imo.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [all emphases added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction [spin] and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

[hanamizu]

Yes, the 14th is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Savage Beast]

"...whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO"

Of course they do not; however, the fundamental question is whether ANY court has the authority to overrule ANY executive order.

Considering that the Executive and the Judicial are coequal Branches of the Government (as recently acknowledged by Supreme Court Justice John Roberts: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/07/politics/john-roberts-event-judicial-independence), the Judicial does not have the legal authority to overrule the Executive.

[Bonemaker]

We know in advance how those 3 hideous democrat krones are going to automatically vote, so the question is how about the other 6 members.

[Savage Beast]

'“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared'

The Emancipation Proclamation violated even more!

'a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.'

And an Executive Order can immediately remedy the judicial branch's unlawful action.

How did such intellectual mediocrities ever get as far as the US Supreme Court?

[OldArmy52]

Since Roberts stated the 3 branches are equal, then a E.O. can cancel or better a Court judgment

[AnotherUnixGeek]

But this SCOTUS has proven itself to be cowardly when it comes to addressing many major questions that affect the power of the judiciary and/or which have political implications.

There's nothing at all cowardly about Kagan, Sotomayer and Jackson, let's give them that - they are all three hardened leftist ideologues and there is never any doubt about how they will vote on any issue. Nor do I believe that Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito are cowards. There's never much doubt about how they will vote either. Roberts is the coward. Barrett is the coward. Kavanaugh is the coward.