The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
Advertisement
Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel.
And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms.
Advertisement
The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants.
'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority.
Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves.
'[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.'
This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive.
The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned.
But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda.
Advertisement
And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection.
Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them.
The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present.
And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them.
Advertisement
We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Motor Trend
15 minutes ago
- Motor Trend
How the One Big Beautiful Bill Will Affect Car Buying and Ownership
On July 4, President Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act into law. The budget reconciliation bill made big changes to federal spending, taxes, and regulation, some of which will have big effects on car owners, enthusiasts, and the automotive industry. We've read through the 879-page bill and outlined the parts that'll affect your next car purchase, the price of gas, and your commute. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" affects car buying by altering tax deductions on auto loans, ending EV tax credits, reducing CAFE penalties to zero, and cutting grants for clean vehicles. It also impacts gas and power prices by changing drilling and energy policies. This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article Read Next Because this is a reconciliation bill, which modifies existing budget legislation rather than starting from scratch, there are limits to what can be included in the legislation. Everything in the bill has to be directly related to government spending and taxation, so some of the changes are creatively written in order to make the cut. (As always, please consult your tax professional before making financial decisions. The below is provided for information purposes only and is not tax or financial advice.) 'No' Tax on Car Loan Interest This one is confusing, and 'no' is in quotation marks because it's misleading. Car buyers looking to finance their next purchase may be able to write off some—but not all—of the interest charged on the loan each calendar year on their taxes. That's not the same as abolishing or suspending the tax altogether, as the claim implies. There are also a number of rules for qualifying which will cut off a lot of buyers. First and foremost, the vehicle you're buying has to be assembled in the U.S. That will be confusing for some buyers, because some of the bestselling vehicles in the U.S, such as the Toyota RAV4 and Chevrolet Silverado, are built in multiple plants, not all of them in the U.S. The IRS will know where your vehicle is made because you have to supply the VIN when claiming the tax deduction, and that number includes a digit that represents the country of origin. The tax deduction doesn't apply to leases, either, only purchases. It appears to apply to both new and used vehicle purchases, as the legislation makes no distinction. Vehicles with salvage titles and parts cars don't count, either. Similarly, it doesn't apply to anything with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds (which is the rating of a Ford F-350, as an example). Commercial vehicles qualify but only if they're for personal use, not business use. Business fleet purchases don't qualify, so be careful if you're planning to register your vehicle to your small business in order to take advantage of other tax incentives. If your purchase qualifies, there are still more rules. The tax deduction is capped at $10,000 per calendar year, so if you pay more than that in interest, the balance will still be taxed. If you make more than $100,000 per year as an individual or $200,000 per year as a joint filer (married or similar), the amount of interest you're able to deduct goes down by $200 for every $1,000 of income you earn over $100,000 (individual, or $200,000 combined). Do the math and it means no tax credit for anyone making over $150,000 individually or $250,000 combined. Finally, the tax credit is only available for a limited time. You can't start counting interest payments towards a deduction until January 1, 2026, so the rest of this year doesn't count. The tax credit will expire on December 31, 2029 unless Congress extends it. EV Tax Credits End September 30 The (up to) $7,500 federal tax credit for new and used EVs now expires on September 30 of this year. Previously, both tax credits were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2032. Likewise, the tax credit for commercial EVs expires the same day. State tax credits are not affected. On a related note, the federal tax credit for installing an EV charger or renewable fuel dispenser at your home or business will expire even sooner, on July 30 of this year. Tax credits have been a huge driver of EV sales to date, so the end of them could cause final vehicle sale prices to rise and sales to plummet. A large drop in sales could lead automakers to discontinue some or all of their EVs, reducing choice in the market. Lower cost EVs with smaller profit margins would be vulnerable, which could lead to only more expensive EVs on the market. Less Help With Bad Auto Loans Stopping predatory auto loans had been a major focus for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Biden administration, but enforcement is likely to drop off substantially after the passage of this bill. Funding for the bureau is cut by 54 percent, which will drastically reduce the number of investigations and actions it's able to execute. No Penalties for CAFE Violations Because this is a reconciliation bill, Congress could not make changes to vehicle emissions and fuel economy laws. Rather than replace or abolish the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE), this bill keeps all the existing rules in place but reduces the penalties for breaking them to $0.00. This means automakers are free to ignore federal fuel economy regulations as the EPA cannot meaningfully enforce them. This could potentially affect consumers in multiple ways. If automakers stop following CAFE rules, fuel economy could go down and emissions could go up. Any savings on R&D could then be passed on to the consumer. This is unlikely, however. Automakers plan as much as a decade in advance, so vehicles for sale today were engineered years ago and the money already spent. Future iterations of Congress and future presidents could also reinstate the penalties in a few years, which would wipe out any savings and put automakers behind on R&D. Fuel economy regulations elsewhere in the world aren't changing, so there's little incentive for automakers to cut R&D spending regardless, meaning no reduction in pricing is likely. No More Money for Clean Commercial Vehicles Businesses and local governments around the country have taken advantage of federal grants to help offset the cost of replacing older heavy duty commercial vehicles with EVs. These grants were commonly used to replace old, diesel school busses with new, electric versions and also covered installation of chargers and training employees to work on those vehicles and chargers. Any grant money not already spent has been taken away. Similarly, grants for reducing diesel exhaust emissions in low income and disadvantaged areas have been cut, with all unspent money withdrawn. Funding has also been cut for an EPA program which studies the health and environmental effects of fuel additives. Reduction in Tax Credits for Commuters If your employer provides a transit passes, vanpool reimbursement, parking passes, or a bicycle commuting reimbursement, the amount you're able to deduct on your taxes is going down. Previously, you could deduct up to $175 per month each for your vanpool, transit pass, or parking pass. Now, you can only deduct up to $175 total per month for any combination of those services. The deduction for bicycle commuting has been eliminated entirely. No More Money or Credits For Home Solar and Battery Backups This is tangential to car buying and ownership, but if you were planning to take advantage of tax credits to install solar panels and battery backups in your home to offset the cost of charging an EV, you're out of luck. Any money not already spent on those grants and tax credits has been rescinded. Likewise, the business tax credit for building specifically energy efficient new homes has been cut, along with business tax credits for training contractors to install solar panels, batteries, and more efficient appliances. Gas and Power Prices Could Be Affected Portions of the bill addressing oil drilling and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may have a small impact on gas prices in the future. Various provisions restart new oil and gas drilling leases both in the U.S. and offshore in its oceans, which would eventually add to the global oil supply and potentially push down prices. However, it will take years for any new leases to be acquired, explored, drilled, and turned into production wells, and oil companies are already sitting on a large number of unexplored leases. Because oil is a globally traded commodity, adding more supply doesn't necessarily change the price of a barrel of oil, nor the price of a gallon of gas. The bill also requires the government to abandon a plan introduced during Trump's first term to sell down part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Instead, it requires the government to buy more oil it can store for future emergencies. Presidents like to draw on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high gas prices, but the quantities withdrawn are typically so small they have little to no impact on lowering the price at the pump. With regard to electricity generation, the bill paves the way to reopen old, closed power plants and cuts tax credits for wind and solar farms. Old power plants will now be able to reopen without any retrofitting of modern pollution controls, which could make them economically viable, although it depends on the individual plant. New wind and solar farms now have a shorter window to begin operations before the tax credits are cut off, and the lack of credits is expected to make new such farms economically unviable in the future. Fewer wind and solar farms means energy prices are less likely to go down or remain flat, while old power plants coming back online could partially offset their absence at the cost of greater air pollution in those communities. The bill also undoes several provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided loans and grants for electrical infrastructure improvements nationally, including transmission line improvements in particular, as well as integrating offshore wind farms into the power grid and improving electrical infrastructure on tribal land. Any reductions in electricity prices or increases in reliability these improvements may have provided are off the table. Similarly, by cutting the clean hydrogen production credit several years earlier than planned, the bill will likely slow or halt the adoption of clean sources of hydrogen and slow or stall the nascent hydrogen vehicle industry, both for private and commercial vehicles. Most hydrogen today is produced from gas and oil, which is both cheaper and dirtier than clean alternatives.
24 minutes ago
What would it take for Elon Musk to create a new political party in America?
On the heels of the Fourth of July -- and amid his feud with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over the president's tax policy bill -- tech billionaire Elon Musk announced plans for a brand new political party, dubbed "America Party," to represent what he called "the 80% in the middle." Musk, who recently left his temporary government post as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, told his X followers that his new party will "give you back your freedom." In a series of posts over the weekend, Musk said his party would use "extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield" to target "2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts," which he believes "would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." So what would it take for Musk to launch his third-party effort? Here's an overview. Getting on the ballot To start, Musk would have to get his party on the ballots in the states where he wants to compete -- each with its own process for qualifying. In many states -- including Kentucky, where the race to fill retiring Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's open seat in 2026 is heating up -- a party-designated candidate must win a nomination from a state-recognized political party that has received a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential election -- or else a candidate has to run as an independent or a write-in candidate. In other states, the America Party's name itself could present a problem -- like in New York, where state law prohibits political parties from having the word "American," or any part of it, as part of their party names, according to Election Law Blog. Bankrolling these state-level efforts would take significant resources. Experts would be needed to navigate each state's election laws and political systems in order to identify and nominate promising candidates, and canvassers would have to gather thousands to tens of thousands of signatures for each candidate to get them on the ballot. Traditionally, candidates and their parties spearhead these operations, working together to strategize signature-gathering, voter registration, and campaign fundraising and spending. But Musk's America Party is unlikely to become a certified political party anytime soon, because the Federal Election Commission, which reviews political organizations' qualification as political parties, has not been in quorum to do so since a commissioner resigned in April, leaving the agency with just three commissioners. FEC commissioners can only be appointed by President Trump himself. It's not yet clear if Musk has filed any paperwork for his America Party, and an FEC spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency has received any paperwork from Musk's team. Going the PAC route Faced with the long odds of gaining party certification, some election experts say that Musk, at least for the time being, could focus on House and Senate candidates through a super PAC. That's because ballot access for congressional races is governed by the states -- not the federal government -- so the America Party could still put its designated candidates on the ballot without the FEC's certification, as long as they pass state qualifications. And because super PACs are unconstrained by fundraising or spending limits, an America Party super PAC could be funded by unlimited donations from supporters including Musk himself, and could independently spend an unlimited amount of money in support of its candidates. The only catch is that super PACs are unable to work directly with campaigns the way FEC-certified political parties can -- but election lawyer Matt Sanderson of Caplin and Drysdale told ABC News that the efficiency of a super PAC can actually outweigh the advantages of a political party. "Form a super PAC, just call yourselves a political party -- that's not against the rules. The FEC blessing is not needed," said Sanderson, who was legal counsel for the No Labels movement during the 2024 election. "I actually don't think it makes a lick of sense in this day and age to try to form yourself as a national party committee." "They can call themselves whatever they want," Sanderson said, explaining that the FEC doesn't prohibit a super PAC from calling itself a political party as long as it doesn't coordinate directly with campaigns. "Just skip right past this very cumbersome and not-all-that-beneficial process, hold themselves out as a political party, and move forward." Joining forces Additionally, Musk could enlist the help of existing third parties, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. However, third parties historically have had little success in gaining office in the United States. During the 2024 election, the centrist group No Labels led a third-party presidential movement but ended its efforts months before the Republican and Democratic national conventions, after failing to find their candidate before their self-imposed deadline. Longstanding Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver ran in the 2024 presidential race but received less than 0.5% of the total vote. Still, a possible collaboration could be in the works: Musk has been in touch with one-time Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who in recent days has spearheaded a third party centrist effort of his own, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. Caleb Burns, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein, acknowledged the potential significance of obtaining an official party status through the FEC instead of bypassing that step with a super PAC -- stressing the role of a political party as a "brand for politicians." "The success of any new political party will turn on whether there are sufficient candidates -- and, by extension, members of the public -- interested in aligning with that new brand," Burns said. "If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to do everything possible to enhance and promote that brand -- which means proceeding with the organizational and legal burdens necessary to create and formalize a new political party." "The critical predicate, however, is the political question of whether or not there is sufficient interest in a new brand of politician," Burns said. "For that, it seems we will have to wait and see what Mr. Musk concludes."
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Pressures South Korea to Pay More for Defense
President Donald Trump said South Korea should pay more for its own defense, upping pressure on the Asian ally after sending a letter to extend time for negotiations before 25% across-the-board levies are set to kick in for its shipments to the US. 'South Korea is making a lot of money and they are very good, they are very good but you know, they should be paying for their own military,' Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
