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 ...
"How about arguing the law for decisions she believe was wrong on?"
should be:
"How about arguing the law for decisions you believe was wrong on?"
Well... I'll pay you nothing. Just accept you're going to get busted for not arguing the point because apparently you're unable to and instead appear to be like so many others that disparage AJ Barrett just 'cuz.
One right? Just a little misleading. Come on now...
And yet, is there a possibility that the Framers’ intent was to exclude only the children born to diplomats?
Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, hence the concept of “diplomatic immunity” a concept of long standing among the civilized nations of the time.
Was illegal immigration even a thing in 1787? Wasn’t it just immigration?
And aren’t illegal immigrants today subject to US jurisdiction as they are arrested, tried, imprisoned and removed by legal action?
I admit to not having researched the Federalist Papers on this. I’m still thinking this is not a slam dunk.
just sayin . . .
NO KINGS!!! And who are the “Kings?” Those District Court justices who think they run the country, that’s who!
And Congress should correct that, tout suite.
District Court decisions should apply only in their district, and their district alone. Appeals to the various circuses should apply only in that circuit. Conflicting Circuit decisions go to SCOTUS. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
“His order directly challenged the 14th Amendment, which states that everyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen, regardless of their descent.”
Sorry, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that.
LOL! All depends on the circumstances. I believe in Modern English it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. We're not talking Latin here!
Then I will do no research for you, nor discuss how Amy Conehead is too frequently on the wrong side of SCOTUS decisions.
Just don't represent it as fact, or you'll get busted - for it. LOL!!!
thank you
good to know
Finally.
“And yet, is there a possibility that the Framers’ intent was to exclude only the children born to diplomats?”
No, they specifically mentioned children of foreign soldiers or from invasion.
And the one SCOTUS case on the issue (dealing with legal “green card” Chinese railroad workers 120 years ago) specifically distinguished tourists and illegal workers.
LOL!
You simply can’t argue the point. Which is not unexpected.
Good luck!
From your keyboard to God's monitor.
Thanks for the context. it’s on these data as you cited that the merits and outcome of the arguments will turn. Here’s hoping.
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.