The Supreme Court has decided that nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants in the United States illegally exceed the courts’ authority. Bart Jansen reports at USA Today:
The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump’s order “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump’s policy. She explicitly said the court wasn’t deciding whether Trump’s order was constitutional.
I wonder if the SCOTUS recognizes the seismic effect that decision will have across the country? I suspect it will be exceeded only if the Court decides that the Constitution’s census and redistricting provisions don’t apply to illegal immigrants.
My understanding is the practical effects are limited. The court ruled only that that a nationwide “universal” preliminary injunction exceeded the district courts authority in this case, but the lower courts can sort out a narrower injunction to give “complete relief” to any parties with standing to sue. It didn’t get anywhere close to addressing the actual underlying dispute about the birthright citizenship executive order or birthright citizenship.
Seems more like a warning to district judges to keep preliminary injunctions for their intended purpose in law.
I think there’s more to it than that. With respect to birthright citizenship per se I suspect we’ll see a rash of laws enacted in a variety of jurisdictions, laws both to implement and block the president’s executive order.
But the decision has a wider reach than that, applying to more than birthright citizenship. Venue shopping will never be the same.
I think a lot of lawsuits get refiled as class actions, but not all. They have to meet the requirements of certifying a class. To certify a class the plaintiff must prove (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation.
Class actions mean that if the class loses the class loses, and nobody in the class can refile. That would impose reciprocity on these lawsuits.
“Venue shopping will never be the same”.
That is the point. In the last 5 months venue shopping went so over the top that it convinced a majority of the supreme court it went beyond what Congress allowed under law.
Note, it will apply to future Republican plaintiffs in a Democratic administration.
Hardest hit: lawyers in California, Oregon, and Washington.
“Note, it will apply to future Republican plaintiffs in a Democratic administration.”
Not really. SCOTUS can still decide to delay hearing cases that might potentially harm the GOP(Trump) or help the Dems. So we could in this case have a child born in one state a citizen and in another not a citizen and that could last for a couple of years if SCOTUS so chooses. However, if the Dems ever regain the majority in SCOTUS they might regret it, but it’s not happening for a long time.
Steve
I forgot to add that per some of the law sites, it looks that while this will stop a single judge for setting limits on the activities of POTUS, it will not stop a single judge from issuing a national injunction based upon the results of a case they hear that does not involve POTUS. If true, this was just another supplemental effort towards the unitary exec theory.
Steve