Coney Barrett Gives Trump Sweeping Boost to Federal Powers
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has led a conservative push to help Donald Trump curtail judges who have hampered his agenda, in a major victory for the U.S. president.
In a highly anticipated ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court has limited the ability of federal lower courts to temporarily pause Trump's executive orders using nationwide injunctions.
The 6-3 ruling, written by Coney Barrett, stemmed from Trump's push to end birthright citizenship, which dictates that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
But the decision could have much broader implications, as Trump has long claimed that the courts are overstepping their authority by handing down nationwide orders that have temporarily blocked some of his policies.
'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
'Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.'
The ruling did not go so far as to make a decision on the constitutionality of Trump's push to end birthright citizenship.
But is has nonetheless thrilled Trump, who has privately lashed out at conservative Supreme Court justices for not consistently backing his agenda, taking particular aim at Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee.
In her opinion, Coney Barrett wrote: 'Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' ... But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.'
The three liberal justices on the court - Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented and have hit out at the ruling.
Describing the decision as 'a travesty for the rule of law,' Sotomayor suggested that Trump knew his birthright citizenship order was unconstitutional, and therefore pursued the issue of universal injunctions instead.
'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent, and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,' she said.
The ruling comes after lower courts have repeatedly rejected Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, citing the 14th Amendment and over a century of legal precedent.
Other parts of Trump's agenda have also been blocked in the courts, such as his deportation plans, including the use of the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of undocumented migrants.
This had led to the White House and MAGA Republicans accusing the judges involved of political bias and judicial overreach.
'We cannot allow a handful of communist radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States,' Trump told supporters late last month.
Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, has also faced criticism from MAGA world. In March, for example, Barrett voted to reject Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, prompting legal commentator Mike Davis to declare on Steve Bannon's podcast: 'She's a rattled law professor with her head up her ass.'
And earlier in January, she sided with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the liberal justices of the court to allow Trump to be sentenced in his so-called 'hush money' trial.
However, Trump allies praised her opinion on Friday.
'This is a massive win for the Trump administration, the rule of law, and the will of American voters,' wrote conservative activist Charlie Kirk. 'This speeds EVERYTHING up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The 9 LGBTQ+ children's books targeted in high court ruling upending education policy
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' and 'Pride Puppy' into the staid public record of the nation's highest court. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court's three liberals dissented. As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County's new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in its entirety. Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case: Pride PuppyAuthor: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin 'Pride Puppy,' a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade. Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the 'invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' '[drag] king' and '[drag] queen,' and 'Marsha P. Johnson,' a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.' The 'leather' in question refers to a mother's jacket, and the 'underwear' to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit. The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching 'Pride Puppy' in the midst of the legal battle. Love, VioletAuthor: Charlotte Sullivan WildIllustrator: Charlene Chua The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who 'had a leaping laugh' and 'made Violet's heart skip.' But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet. On Valentine's Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together. Lawyers for the parents describe 'Love, Violet' as a book about 'two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.' They wrote in that 'teachers are encouraged to have a 'think aloud' moment to ask students how it feels when they don't just 'like' but 'like like' someone.' Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named PenelopeAuthor: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow In 'Born Ready,' 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy. 'I love you, Mama, but I don't want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,' Penelope tells their mom. 'We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,' Penelope's mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate. In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, 'When Penelope's brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, 'Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.' ' In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that 'teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people 'guess about our gender,' but 'we know ourselves best.' ' Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis 'Prince and Knight' is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback. When the king and queen find out of their love, they 'were overwhelmed with joy. 'We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!' ' A great wedding is held, and 'the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.' 'The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,' said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong. 'For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,' Alito wrote. 'If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn't that mean it is in every respect a good thing?' Uncle Bobby's WeddingAuthor: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union. In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that 'two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they 'love each other.' ' That viewpoint is 'directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.' Parents ability to 'present a different moral message' to their children, he said, 'is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, 'Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.' The majority's analysis, she writes, 'reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.' Jacob's Room to ChooseAuthor: Sarah Hoffman and Ian HoffmanIllustrator: Chris Case 'Jacob's Room to Choose' is a follow-up to 'Jacob's New Dress,' a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.'s top 100 banned books of the last decade. Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy's bathroom, two little boys 'stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.' The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl's bathroom. Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors. 'After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim 'Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny' and '[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,' ' lawyers for the parents wrote. IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith 'IntersectionAllies,' written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, 'My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.' In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: 'When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.' The guide asks readers, 'What pronouns fit you best?' Alito wrote. What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine LockeIllustrator: Anne Passchier 'What Are Your Words' is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are 'like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that's ok, because they're my words.' Ari's Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them. 'The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,' the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, 'My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.' My RainbowAuthor: DeShanna Neal and Trinity NealIllustrator: Art Twink 'My Rainbow' tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. 'The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,' lawyers for the parents wrote. The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching 'My Rainbow' during the course of the lawsuit. This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to
Business Insider
36 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion.
41 minutes ago
Arizona governor caps off quarrelsome legislative session with budget approval
PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed on Friday a bipartisan budget that boosts pay for first responders and increases spending on social services, capping a quarrelsome session of the Republican-led Legislature that brought the state to the brink of a government shutdown. The first-term Democrat broke her veto record, sparred with Republicans over agency leadership nominations and got on board with bipartisan proposals that ruffled the feathers of some members of her party. The session unfolded while Hobbs' 2026 bid to hold the reins of the battleground state loomed large. Hobbs began the session with an uphill climb, confronting expanded Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Arizona is one of eight states where the governor's office and legislature are controlled by opposing parties. Hobbs' office chose to negotiate on just a handful of issues this session, including water policy, funding for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents and renovations to a stadium used by the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Legislature sent the governor a $17.6 billion budget after GOP lawmakers traded barbs with each other and Hobbs' office. The Senate approved one version, but it lacked votes in the House, leaving lawmakers in that chamber to introduce a measure meant to keep state operations running while negotiations continued. On Wednesday, Hobbs vetoed the proposal favored by House Republicans and the continuation measure, calling them partisan and reckless. House Speaker Steve Montenegro introduced amendments to the budget proposal Thursday, and the chamber passed it that night, clearing the way for the Senate to sign off. 'Our principles haven't changed. We've led responsibly in a divided government, fought to preserve conservative priorities, and made this budget better than it would have been without us,' Montenegro said in a statement Friday. Hobbs indicated last fall that she was willing to work with President Donald Trump's administration on border security issues like stopping fentanyl trafficking and followed up in January calling the Laken Riley Act 'an important step forward" in a post on the social platform X. The act requires detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft and violent crime. Hobbs' stance drew praise from GOP Senate President Warren Petersen, while members of her own party criticized the measure. She signed an executive order in February to create a task force that would oversee expanded operations at the border, but she later vetoed a measure that would have required local and state officials to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, a Democrat, said her caucus pushed Hobbs to limit spending on border support, saying it had 'drawn a hard line' and planned to withhold votes on the state budget until the border funding was reduced. Democratic Senate Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Catherine Miranda, who voted against the budget, said last week that she could not support a budget that has language that opens the door to immigration enforcement. 'And while I know that Gov. Hobbs has promised she will not use the Local Border Support Fund to enforce immigrant laws, the language included in a bill has as much impact as the actual policy implementation,' Miranda said. Progressive lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez said she would have liked to see Hobbs take a less hawkish posture on border security. Despite some frustrations, House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos said the budget delivers on priorities that include public education, Medicaid and expanded health care for certain patients. 'We also make big investments to bring down the cost of childcare and make college tuition free for Arizona's students from working families,' he said in a statement. Hobbs is no stranger to the veto pen, which she has wielded to knock down what she considers proposals that are out of touch with the state's purple electorate. This year, she vetoed about 170 bills, including an attempt to speed up the counting of ballots. She's repeatedly accused state Sen. Jake Hoffman, who chairs the Legislature's Freedom Caucus, for politicizing the confirmations of her agency head nominees. Her fight with Republicans over funding for a state agency that provides services for some of Arizona's most vulnerable residents led to a moratorium on bill signing, and she has criticized Republicans for hitting the breaks on a proposal that could have led to increased regulation of groundwater pumping in rural areas of the drought-stricken state. Hobbs has said she'd take action on the water front in the absence of a legislative deal, which could set up another round of sparring with Republican lawmakers as she prepares to seek another term. endorsed by the president.
