logo
US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges

US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges

WASHINGTON:
US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" on Friday after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies.
The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship.
The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity, and sacking federal employees.
"The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House.
Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including halting funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants.
His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, where he welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN."
US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation."
Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil.
But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a major roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump – or future US presidents.
The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices.
"Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over earlier decisions that went against the president.
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution."
Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism."
Trump, however, rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution."
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country – both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.
Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, dismissal of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programmes, and punitive actions against law firms and universities.
Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda.
But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.
The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.
The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.
Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government."
Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump denies reports of $30 billion nuclear deal with Iran
Trump denies reports of $30 billion nuclear deal with Iran

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Trump denies reports of $30 billion nuclear deal with Iran

WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed media reports that said his administration had discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program. CNN reported on Thursday and NBC News reported on Friday that the Trump administration in recent days had explored possible economic incentives for Iran in return for its government halting uranium enrichment. The reports cited sources. CNN cited officials as saying that several proposals were floated and were preliminary. "Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that 'President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.' Never heard of this ridiculous idea," Trump wrote on Truth Social late on Friday, calling the reports a "HOAX." Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held indirect talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Washington says it wants to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. Trump, earlier this week, announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. The U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites over the last weekend and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation, before Trump announced the ceasefire. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, has said it has "no credible indication" of an active, coordinated weapons programme in Iran.

Trump dismisses reports US is weighing up to $30 billion civilian nuclear deal for Iran
Trump dismisses reports US is weighing up to $30 billion civilian nuclear deal for Iran

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Trump dismisses reports US is weighing up to $30 billion civilian nuclear deal for Iran

WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday dismissed media reports that said his administration had discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program. CNN reported on Thursday and NBC News reported on Friday that the Trump administration in recent days had explored possible economic incentives for Iran in return for its government halting uranium enrichment. The reports cited sources. CNN cited officials as saying that several proposals were floated and were preliminary. "Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that 'President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.' Never heard of this ridiculous idea," Trump wrote on Truth Social late on Friday, calling the reports a "HOAX." Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held indirect talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Washington says it wants to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. Trump, earlier this week, announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. The U.S. struck Iran's nuclear sites over the last weekend and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar on Monday in retaliation, before Trump announced the ceasefire. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, has said it has "no credible indication" of an active, coordinated weapons programme in Iran.

Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term

The Star

time2 hours ago

  • The Star

Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'A BULLY PULPIT' "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. 'NOT THE COURT'S ROLE' In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'" Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries." Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court," Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act." (Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store