The Supreme Court heard arguments today both for and against national injunctions by lower-level district judges. They are considering them in an executive order on Birthright Citizenship. However, the case is not based on the merits (Trump v. CASA). Birthright citizenship will not be decided.
Professor Jonathan Turley’s Opinion
Jonathan Turley said on X that “the Trump Administration has made a ‘modest request’ for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.
“The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump v. CASA out of Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts.
“These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.
“Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh seemed strongly in favor of the Administration. Roberts also made repeated points that seemed to support some of the arguments of the Administration, though it was not clear how he would vote.
“On the left, Kagan repeatedly strived to distinguish this case from her earlier objections to universal injunctions under the Biden Administration. She seemed solidly with Sotomayor and Jackson. That leaves Gorsuch and Barrett.
“Gorsuch has previously expressed criticism of universal injunctions but asked probing questions on both sides. Barrett seemed more accommodating in seeking a way to uphold universal injunctions.
“In other words, this could be a nail-biter. I think that the Administration still has an advantage in curtailing universal injunctions. However, I did not come away with the sense of a lock with a majority, particularly given Barrett’s questions. I am also unsure how Roberts and Gorsuch will play out on the details. Fortunately, we will likely know within a couple of weeks.”
Professor Margot Cleveland’s Take
THREAD on broad thoughts from hearing: My “gut” is that SCOTUS will follow what I call the Kavanaugh approach to nationwide injunctions and hold that there are rules & those must be followed and those rules require class certification to provide relief beyond Plaintiffs. 1/ https://t.co/dP9uyCMku3
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 15, 2025
11/ In case of States suing, my understanding is it wasn’t technically a nationwide injunction but rather a remedy supposedly gears to provide complete relief to the States. SCOTUS could remand that with guidance of what type of remedy is allowed for a State.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 15, 2025
12/12 Two final points: We already have had 5 justices criticize nationwide injunctions, which IMNSHO will trump any concern over Trump. And finally, as several justices noted, eliminating nationwide injunctions isn’t going to address problem of what district judges are doing.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 15, 2025
You can comment on the article after the ads (please be polite to commenters), and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Lower courts being able to block a president’s every move will lead to anarchy. Why even have a president if lower courts can block is every move?
Why elect a President/Commander in Chief??? Rebuilding “Babel”???
Since when did “Minor Judges” obtain more power than the President of the United States? Since 2016 when the marxist coup began to overthrow a duly elected President.
As I read this a thought appeared. If I were a supreme court judge, I would not want some low level court 2 levels down from me making national rulings. The district courts not only usurp Trump’s power, they usurp the supreme court’s power. Minor leaguers have to make it to the major leagues if they want to play in… Read more »