Supreme Court Weighs Limits on Nationwide Injunctions in Trump Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court is poised to consider a case that could significantly curtail the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a legal tool that has become increasingly prominent in recent years and has been used to block major policy initiatives from both Republican and Democratic administrations. This particular case stems from former President Donald Trump’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents.

While the Supreme Court is not directly considering the legality of Trump’s policy at this time, the case provides an opportunity for the justices to address the broader question of whether federal judges should be allowed to issue orders that halt the implementation of policies across the entire country, rather than just for the specific parties involved in the lawsuit.

Trump’s administration argued that these nationwide injunctions, which he has labeled "toxic and unprecedented," have unduly hampered the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its duties. The Justice Department has argued that unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual litigants, judges will have too much power to stall crucial presidential actions. They assert that the Executive Branch cannot function properly if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere.

Those challenging Trump’s citizenship policy, however, contend that a nationwide pause is justified in this instance. They argue that the citizenship of the more than 150,000 babies born each year who could be affected by Trump’s executive order should not be determined based on which state they were born in and whether that state joined the lawsuits. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the attorneys general leading the opposition, stated that the Constitution does not support the idea that a child born in one state should be treated differently under the 14th Amendment than a child born in another.

The use of nationwide injunctions has grown significantly in recent years. Legal scholars point to a 2015 case in which Texas sued the Obama administration to stop an expansion of a program protecting young immigrants from deportation as a turning point. During his presidency, Barack Obama faced a dozen nationwide injunctions. President Joe Biden dealt with 14 in his first three years, including one blocking his requirement that federal workers be vaccinated for COVID-19.

Trump, however, faced a staggering 64 injunctions during his first term, and the pace of injunctions has continued to increase. This has led to growing frustration among conservatives, who argue that these orders allow a single judge to effectively veto policies supported by the President and Congress.

Trump himself has been vocal about his displeasure, taking to social media to demand that the Supreme Court intervene. He has called the situation "toxic and unprecedented" and warned that the country is in "very serious trouble" if the Supreme Court does not fix it.

While there are legitimate criticisms of one judge’s ability to pause universal application of a policy, the situation courts are currently reacting to is unusual, according to Alan Trammell, a leading authority on universal injunctions. He argues that it is not normal for a president to try to rewrite the citizenship clause of the Constitution and upend jurisprudence that has existed for more than a century.

Some legal experts, such as Samuel Bray, believe that the Supreme Court will use this case to address the scope of injunctions that can be issued by federal courts. He argues that because Trump’s executive order is "flagrantly illegal," the justices will not get sidetracked by the underlying debate about the order’s constitutionality.

Several Supreme Court justices have expressed concerns about universal injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch has called them "unworkable" and stated that the court must address them. Justice Elena Kagan has also spoken out against sweeping injunctions and the ability of challengers to find one friendly judge to issue such an order.

Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court declined to take up the issue during the Biden administration when a Texas judge blocked an anti-money laundering law. The fact that the court has chosen this case to discuss universal injunctions could suggest that a majority of the justices are inclined to limit their use.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, believes that the court may use this case to signal a desire to end universal injunctions altogether. However, Samuel Bray suggests that the court could restrict or eliminate universal injunctions while also reaffirming that birthright citizenship is settled law.

Even if universal injunctions are limited, those challenging Trump’s citizenship policy could still pursue other legal avenues, such as filing a class action lawsuit. Bray believes that such actions could be taken quickly enough to avoid a situation where different citizenship rules apply in different parts of the country. He predicts that the legal question on the merits is so clear that a patchwork of rules would not last for very long.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the Executive and Judicial branches, and could reshape the landscape of legal challenges to presidential policies for years to come. The court’s ruling is eagerly awaited by legal scholars, policymakers, and the public alike. It remains to be seen whether the court will seize this opportunity to reign in the use of nationwide injunctions, or whether it will allow this legal tool to continue to be used as a check on presidential power.