
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


New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trial Over Free Speech on Campus, and Trump's Student Crackdown, Begins
A federal judge in Boston on Monday will hear opening statements in a trial expected to cut to the heart of several of the most divisive issues in U.S. politics, including President Trump, Israel and free speech on college campuses. The case, filed by a pair of academic associations in March, has become the foremost challenge to the Trump administration's aggressive posture toward foreign students who espoused pro-Palestinian views. It contends that the government's targeting of prominent noncitizen academics who have criticized Israel — such as Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi of Columbia University and Rumeysa Ozturk of Tufts — has already partially succeeded in chilling political speech across the country, and should be categorically stopped on First Amendment grounds. All of those academics, who are either legal permanent residents or in the United States on student visas, have successfully fought for and obtained their release even as their immigration cases continue to wend through the courts. But lawyers for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, who are representing the associations, will argue at trial this week that the arrests were part of an official policy that could just as easily be turned on other groups that clash with the Trump administration. While the Supreme Court has affirmed in at least one major case that foreign nationals living in the United States are generally entitled to First Amendment rights, constitutional law experts have cautioned that there are few obvious legal parallels in American history. In its filings, the government has argued that pro-Palestinian demonstrations are an expression of support for Hamas, which the American government considers a terrorist organization. It has relied on Cold War-era precedents in which the Supreme Court upheld the government's power to deny entry to people over their past membership in the Communist Party. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Israel and Hamas are inching toward a new ceasefire deal for Gaza. This is how it might look
JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington Monday to meet U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for a ceasefire that might lead to an end to the 21-month war in Gaza. Israel and Hamas are considering a new U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal that would pause the war, free Israeli hostages and send much-needed aid flooding into Gaza. It also aims to open broader talks about ending the conflict. Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over Hamas' demands for an end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, while Israel wants Hamas to surrender and disarm before it ends the war. While the final details have yet to be agreed to by the sides, The Associated Press obtained a copy of the proposal sent by mediators to Hamas. — The truce would last 60 days. — 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 would be released in phases throughout the truce. — Palestinian prisoners held by Israel will be released in exchange for the hostages, although precise numbers were not detailed. — Humanitarian aid entering Gaza would be ramped up significantly and would be distributed by the United Nations. The proposal makes no mention of the U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. — Israeli forces would withdraw to a buffer zone along Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt. Israel has seized large swaths of the territory since ending a previous ceasefire in March. — On the first day of the truce, the sides are expected to begin negotiations toward an end to the war, but no timeline is mentioned. — The mediators — the U.S., Egypt and Qatar — will serve as guarantors to make sure the sides negotiate in good faith. — While there is no guarantee the war would end, the proposal states that Trump insists the talks during the truce 'would lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict.' — If the negotiations toward ending the war are not complete after 60 days, the ceasefire may be extended. — The proposal says Trump will personally announce the ceasefire deal once it is reached.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Scott Bessent Shades Elon Musk's New ‘America Party'
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is no fan of Elon Musk's new 'America Party.' Speaking on CNN's State of the Union, Bessent said that while the 'principles of DOGE were very popular,' the Tesla CEO 'was not.' 'I believe that the boards of directors at his various companies wanted him to come back and run those companies,' Bessent said Sunday. 'So, I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities.' Calling Trump 'the most economically sophisticated president in the past 100 years, maybe ever,' Bessent defended the new Aug. 1 deadline for the completion of tariff talks after the president pledged to push through '90 deals in 90 days,' which would have fallen on July 9. 'It's not a new deadline,' Bessent said. 'We are saying this is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice.' Trump on Friday said that the United States would start sending letters to nations that have yet to make a trade deal with the White House, giving them a deadline of Aug. 1 for the tariffs Trump announced in April to take effect. On April 2, which Trump called 'Liberation Day,' the president announced sweeping 'reciprocal tariffs' of 10 to 70 percent on dozens of trading partners. Days later, the administration paused the sky-high levies for 90 days to allow the world to negotiate new trade agreements. Bessent was also challenged on Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, which added work requirements to Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the changes would kick 12 million people off the rolls. Bessent said Democrats were being vocal over the issue because they 'unfortunately seem to think that poor people are stupid.' 'I don't think poor people are stupid,' he added. 'I think they have agency and I think to have them register twice a year for these benefits, that is not a burden.' Trump signed the bill into law on Friday despite the administration's insistence that the legislation would not cut Medicaid benefits. CNN's Bash challenged Bessent on this point, saying that 'putting a work requirement is by definition, a change to benefits.' Bessent countered that the move was 'a change in requirements to get the benefits.' Hours earlier, Bessent admitted on Fox News Sunday that Trump's tariffs have caused a price hike. 'There's a big difference in inflation and one-time price adjustment,' he said. 'What we are seeing the business model for many of our trading partners, especially in Southeast Asia, is to produce produce produce and the manufacturers in those countries are taking the price increases into—or the tariffs—into their margins.'