Posted on 06/27/2025 7:18:05 AM PDT by CaptainK
The justices found federal judges had exceeded their power by issuing temporary pauses on President Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship. But they made no ruling on the constitutionality of the order itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So Trump can just go ahead and enforce it until/unless it is successfully challenged, without a national injunction, in court?
Roberts finally got it right, but as minimally right as was possible.
I did not have a battle royal over birthright citizenship on my 2025 bingo card, but I’m here for it.
I think local judges are limited to the jurisdiction.
Right. But why wait 30 days for Trump’s order if they’re not hoping Roberts’s good buddy Norm Eisen can brainstorm something else by then?
Whenever Roberts rules on the correct side he will always minimize it as much as he possibly can. He always leaves the door open for the other side to drive a tank though it.
There was talk the skittish SCOTUS was going to pack their vacation bags and rush out of town without this major decision——the most important issue between us and civil war. Surprised they worked up the courage to rule today.
Allowing illegals to be here with long delays and legal firms slowing their cases would simply mean the citizens would fight physically against the local illegals who are killing, robbing, carjacking and raping them and taking millions of dollars in housing and medical care.
Local judges would bring that civil war.
We needed a national ruling victory.
Justice Barret included a complete section, approved by six Justices, that destroyed the view of Jackson in dissent. The section took great umbrage with the “imperial” status of the judiciary. Barrett and the other five joining, does not agree with that imperialism. It si silly for a judge to order the executive to follow the law when the judge is not following the law which limits their powers.
This is from a quick, rapid read. Maybe more later.
Gwjack
Doesn’t this mean that they’ve exceeded their power for all of their activist orders?
Either Federal laws apply to EVERY State equally or they don’t. Which is it, Roberts? Or do we have to repeat the first half of the 1860’s?
Limited to the plaintiffs of the case. Nothing about BRC.
“The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted,” Barrett wrote, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
That sounds like a loophole large enough to drive a Sherman tank through. The lower court judges will simply rule that a particular nationwide injunction “is necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
also see
BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Rogue Judges, Impacting Birthright Citizenship
Federal anD state judges just ignore the sc now it appears
Darn, I thought it said “Injections” ... Still have PTSD from when the clot shot was mandated at work (I left the company)
THEY FINALLY DID IT!
SUPREME COURT DEALS HARD BLOW TO RESISTANCE 2.0 BY HOLDING NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS ARE IMPROPER INFRINGEMENT BY COURTS ON POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE. HUGE W FOR TRUMP!!
Yep every time we “win” one they always leave a gaping hole for the left to exploit and nullify the so called win
Kagan the hypocrite joined the dissent. She had previously spoken against the power of district court judges to impose universal injunctions. Of course, that was when Biden was president. Now, somehow this is different.
Or she’s just a political hypocrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.