Posted on 06/27/2025 7:35:35 AM PDT by DFG
In a sweeping ruling, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to block executive actions throughout the country through nationwide injunctions, greatly affecting how parties seek judicial relief going forward.
The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, deals a significant blow to legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s extreme executive orders and other actions, many of which have been blocked or temporarily put on hold through nationwide injunctions.
Nationwide, or universal, injunctions prevent the government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy across the entire U.S. — not just against the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, and not just in the districts where they’re issued.
Friday’s decision was over Trump’s executive order aiming to deny citizenship to children who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. His order directly challenged the 14th Amendment, which states that everyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen, regardless of their descent.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court said nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
The court’s ruling does not address the underlying constitutionality and merits of Trump’s order. It instead stayed nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
The orders prevented federal agencies from carrying out Trump’s birthright citizenship order anywhere in the country. The Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged the orders by asking the Supreme Court in an emergency application whether judges can grant relief that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.
(Excerpt) Read more at democracydocket.com ...
“The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, deals a significant blow to legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s extreme executive orders and other actions...”
No bias there.
Yeaaaaa!
Amy Conehead finally gets one right.
She’s not from France, but claims to be a Cajun of French descent...
No, Trump's order does not challenge the 14th Amendment, but rather enforces it by giving meaning to the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is telling that the author paraphrases the amendment rather than quoting it directly.
“His order directly challenged the 14th Amendment, which states that everyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen, regardless of their descent.”
The 14th Amendment does not state that.
It states:
“All persons born 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. “
The key being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Only children of citizens and green-card permanent residents are automatically citizens.
Amy....stay FAR AWAY FROM THOSE DUMBASS SISTERS!! THEY WILL BRING YOU DOWN!!
Now when a district court Democrat issues an injunction, a hundred others will pop up and mimic her.
THIS HAS TO GET SETTLED ONCE & FOR ALL
“... the 14th Amendment, which states that everyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen, regardless of their descent.”
INCORRECT:
“All persons born 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.”
THE KEY PHRASE THAT EVERYONE IGNORES IS:
“AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “..................
How so?
Meps!
To be clear.
This Supreme Court decision does not say anything about the legality of birthright citizenship.
What it does say, is that there are limits to district judges issuing nationwide injuctions against presidential executive orders.
It means that current injunctions that were filed against Trump’s EO have been partially stayed, so Trump’s EO now should apply nationwide
However, Trump will need to take the determination of what was meant in the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship back to the Supreme Court again, for a final determination.
I don’t know what this means yet, for instance, for all the babies that have been born during this time period the district judges had issued their nationwide injunctions.
All the Rats have to do is find one anchor baby in each district. “A hundred” is rhetorical, not a verified count.
The stupid F'n media still doesn't get it.
Yes, she gets "one right".
How about arguing the law for decisions she believe was wrong on? That you make that comment you did suggests you're ignorant in that area and thus resort to the "Conehead finally" comment.
Actually for Democrats and Republicans. It's gone on for too long as it is regardless of party.
lol...
the source in this thread, is a site created by mark elias... the leftist lawyer who worked for clinton, created and pushed the russian dossier and collusion with Trump, and multiple lawsuits against Trump
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.