The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that would limit the ability of federal judges to halt Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born in the United States from parents in the country illegally or temporarily.
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire issued “nationwide injunctions” preventing Trump’s power grab in defiance of the 14th Amendment.
Three liberal justices appeared against the government’s effort to defeat nationwide injunctions, while two conservative justices — Thomas and Alito — appeared in favor of it.
- Thomas wondered if nationwide injunctions were necessary, and Alito asked if reining in the nationwide injunctions goes far enough, questioning the validity the case’s plaintiffs standing.
- Sotomayor’s hypothetical case suggested a president could carry out an unconstitutional act such as confiscating guns and ignoring the 2nd Amendment without lower court judges being able to enact a nationwide injunction against the act.
- Kagan asked whether the government would ever appeal a case to the Supreme Court for decision if they are still able to carry out acts against people who didn’t file lawsuits against the government. Kagan further stated that the government keeps losing these cases.
“This is happening right now: Every court has ruled against you,” she said. Kagan continued by adding, if there are no nationwide injunctions, “the government has no incentive to take matters to the Supreme Court.”
- Gorsuch, Roberts, and Barrett all followed up with support of Kagan’s questions.
Kavanaugh had a question on the practicality of enforcing Trump’s order, and there was a stunning admittance:
