GOP takes victory lap over ruling limiting nationwide injunctions
President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other top Republicans took a victory lap Friday over the Supreme Court ruling that allowed for Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country.
'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on the social platform X.
'[Lower court judges] vetoed all of President Trump's power, and they cannot do that. This has been a bipartisan problem that has lasted five presidential terms, five different presidents, and it has ended today,' she later added at a White House presser.
'It indirectly impacts every case in this country, and we're thrilled with their decision today.'
The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions and limited blocks on implementing Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in states that have filed challenges against it.
In the other states however, the ruling allows the Trump administration to resume developing guidance to implement the order, though it must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone.
The ruling though does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional.
But the case will have significance for legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration fights nationwide injunctions in other cases blocking its policies.
Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump said the ruling would be helpful in a number of its other cases.
'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem,' he said.
'Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. We have so many of them. I have a whole list.'
The Trump administration has railed against the use of nationwide injunctions, fuming that district court judges have the power to block implementation.
'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!' Trump posted Friday morning 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.'
But what the Trump administration has called judicial activism, Democrats and legal challengers argue is a reflection of the illegality of multiple Trump policies.
Democrats argue that Trump — who has already issued more than 100 executive orders during his second term — has far surpassed his predecessors in seeking to shape policy through executive orders that go beyond the scope of his powers.
His policies have been struck down by judges of both parties, including some of his own appointees.
The use of nationwide injunctions has grown over recent decades, spurring louder calls to limit judicial power. The House earlier this year passed a bill limiting the ability of district court judges to impose nationwide injunctions, though it has not yet been taken up in the Senate.
In a sign of the ruling's significance, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said a similar bill from him seeking to curb nationwide injunctions may no longer be necessary.
'Thx to SCOTUS my legislation may not be needed,' the chair wrote on X. 'Supreme Court backs up what Ive been saying [for] months: judges [are] limited to cases+controversies/federal courts should NOT exceed their authority.'
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the lead groups fighting the policy, lamented that citizenship would not be handled in the same way everywhere across the country.
'Twenty-two states and Americans around the country who are affected by the illegal executive order will continue their lawsuits. Ultimately, we will vindicate the 14th Amendment's fundamental promise that ensures every child born on U.S. soil is recognized as a citizen of this country from the moment they are born, regardless of their race, parentage, or which state they live in,' Cecillia Wang, ACLU's national legal director, said in a statement.
Trump signed an order on his first day in office that curbs birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil if they don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status, which would upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Before Friday's high court decision, every other court to directly confront the legality of Trump's order so far has found it likely unconstitutional. The administration went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to narrow nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Greenbelt, Md., Seattle and Boston.
In the birthright citizenship case, Democrats have argued that nationwide injunctions make sense to protect a right afforded to all regardless of where they are born.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University, told lawmakers earlier this year that applying relief in such a narrow way wouldn't make sense.
'Consider the birthright citizenship cases. Do we really think that parents should have to challenge that policy one child at a time? Would it make any sense at all, even on a broader scale, for the scope of birthright citizenship to differ in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, simply because those three states fall into three different circuits?' he asked.
'Any time a court invalidates a state or federal law on its face, rather than as applied to the specific plaintiffs, it is necessarily providing relief to non-parties, since the law can no longer be enforced against anyone.'
Updated at 12:10 p.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
History, schmistory — MAGA has its eyes on the future
Advertisement However, if the issues that MAGA Americans find most vexing are either solved or substantially improved (by data and objective sources), their continued contempt for history will be justified and little attention will be given to precedent. In this scenario, all established American institutions will be in some form of jeopardy. I attribute the continued success of the MAGA ideology and its practices to a desire of many to deal with problems simply and in a straightforward manner. I also contend that this methodology is itself too simple and lacks the depth needed to solve complex problems. Advertisement As our Framers taught us all those years ago, successful outcomes are the result of intelligent, detailed, and informed compromise, which, sadly, is in short supply these days. Peter Vangsness Medway
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans advance Trump's tax and spending cuts bill after dramatic late-night vote
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans voting in a dramatic late Saturday session narrowly cleared a key procedural step as they race to advance President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered deportation funds by his July Fourth deadline. The tally, 51-49, came after a tumultuous night with Vice President JD Vance at the Capitol to break a potential tie. Tense scenes played out in the chamber as voting came to a standstill, dragging for more than three hours as holdout senators huddled for negotiations, and took private meetings off the floor. In the end, two Republicans opposed the motion to proceed, joining all Democrats. There's still a long weekend of work to come. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Ahead of roll call, the White House released a statement of administrative policy saying it 'strongly supports passage' of the bill. Trump himself was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with GOP senators posting about the visit on social media. But by nightfall, Trump was lashing out against holdouts, threatening to campaign against one Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who had announced he could not support the bill because of grave Medicaid cuts that he worried would leave many without health care in his state. Tillis and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against. The president was working the phones from the Oval Office late Saturday night, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Pressure was mounting from all sides — billionaire Elon Musk criticized the package as 'utterly insane and destructive.' The 940-page "One Big Beautiful Bill Act was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through all-night debate and amendments in the days ahead. If the Senate is able to pass it, the bill would go back to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would increase by 11.8 million the number of people without health insurance in 2034. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill 'in the dead of night' and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. He immediately forced a full reading of the text late Saturday in the Senate, which would take hours. Make-or-break moment for GOP The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up and has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments, which a top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said would be a 'death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries, are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Tillis said he spoke with Trump late Friday explaining his concerns. Paul of Kentucky had been opposed to the bill's provision to raise the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. And GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who initially voted no, switched hours later after private talks to agree to advance the bill. As the roll call teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted to proceed. A short time later, Thune drew conservative holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office, with Vance and Johnson also joining. Talks dragged on. Then swiftly, Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group "had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.' After setbacks, Republicans revise some proposals The release of the bill's draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the measure to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. The CBO had said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The budget office has started releasing initial assessments of the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. SALT dispute shakes things up The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled. The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a handful of Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap, but limits it for five years. Many Republican senators say that is still too generous, but House Republicans are not fully satisfied either. House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington. ___ Associated Press writers Ali Swenson, Fatima Hussein, Michelle L. Price and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
