“A major win at the U.S. Supreme Court!” President Donald Trump exclaimed, following a 6-3 vote that limits judges’ ability to issue national injunctions against his policies.
The continuation:
Even the issue of birthright citizenship took a significant hit, which was connected more to the historical context of slavery than the flaws in our immigration system. Kudos to Attorney General Pam Bondy, Attorney General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ. There will be a press conference at the White House at 11:30 a.m. EST.
According to a reporter from Politico, the injunction decision is “huge” for Trump’s team.
This ruling instructs lower courts to create a more specific legal framework governing national injunctions.
The ruling stems from Trump’s legal challenge against automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, though the legality of his birthright citizenship policies remains unchallenged by the courts.
This decision comes after many lower court judges imposed national injunctions to halt Trump’s reforms, even when just a small number of elite plaintiffs from one state challenged the policies.
The court had granted nationwide injunctions in cases where states sued the federal government.
“When the court determines that an administrative agency acted outside its authority, the remedy shouldn’t go beyond what is necessary,” wrote Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the 6-3 majority. “While applications for partial stays on provisional injunctions are allowed, the injunctions must not exceed what is required to give complete relief to plaintiffs appealing the case.”
The court noted:
A universal injunction likely exceeds the powers Congress has granted to federal courts. The court expressed concern over whether Congress has indeed empowered federal courts to universally ban the enforcement of executive orders. Throughout the administration, lawyers have pressed the court to evaluate the validity of such sweeping measures, especially as their occurrence has grown in recent years.
It seems the government has a strong case that district courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions.
“Issuing a universal injunction could only be justified as an exercise of appropriate authority, which Congress has not granted to federal courts,” concluded the decision.
