The AP noticed that the Supreme Court seems in no hurry to rule on Trump plea to rein in judges over birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to address the questionable ability of a single judge to block a nationwide policy.
While several justices have expressed concern about the use of so-called nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the high court has sidestepped multiple requests to do something about them.
The latest plea comes in the form of an emergency appeal the Justice Department filed with the court last week, seeking to narrow orders issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that prohibit the nationwide enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship.
The justices usually order the other side in an emergency appeal to respond in a few days or a week. But in this case, they have set a deadline of April 4, without offering any explanation.
The standard practice in U.S. courts is that a judge issues an order that gives only the people who sued what they want. As the name suggests, nationwide injunctions go well beyond the parties to a case and apply everywhere and to everyone who might be affected.
Obama was the biggest offender until Joe Biden or President Autopen took over.
The AP thinks it is because of the increase in Executive Actions. They didn’t seem to notice that the leftist judges are destroying the President’s entire agenda.
The dishonest AP suggested Republicans using it are the real problem.
The AP should tell the truth that judges are engaging in judicial tyranny.
Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is a leading voice arguing that judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. The limits on a judge’s power remain even in the face of an obviously unconstitutional policy, Bray said.
That restraint applies even in the birthright citizenship cases, Bray wrote on the Divided Argument blog. “Any illegal act by the president should be rejected by the federal courts. But they should reject it as courts do—one case at a time, with remedies for the parties,” he wrote.
People challenging the executive order could file a class-action lawsuit, which would have broader application. Indeed, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing immigration advocates and individuals in a case in New Hampshire told a judge that the ACLU was considering a nationwide class action.
But the group’s lawyer, Cody Wofsy, pointed out what might happen in the interim, if the Supreme Court agrees to the administration’s request.
“Children would be exposed to all the harms we’ve talked about immediately,” Wofsy said.
Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, thinks the Supreme Court could be open to addressing the broader issue at some point because judges impose nationwide injunctions too often.
But birthright citizenship would be a terrible issue on which to do so, Frost said.
“It would create a burden on people at a moment in their lives when they’re entering into the labor delivery room…And then you create a patchwork across the United States, incentivizing pregnant women to leave for a state that recognizes birthright citizenship,” she said.
Birthright citizenship, along with chain migration, has taken away Americans’ rights to decide who comes into the country. We have no say. Foreigners decide. Birth tourism is specifically used to steal our benefits.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
