Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US 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 to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"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.
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 favour 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Top US court evades issue of birthright citizenship
The United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling, which denied the federal courts the right to block executive orders nationwide. The US Federal Government of President Donald Trump too sought a limited ruling from the Supreme Court. The government challenged the federal courts' authority to issue orders blocking the executive directives nationwide that a baby born in the United States does not automatically gain the US citizenship. This is part of Trump's agenda to restrict immigration. Three federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state have issued orders that the presidential order should be blocked nationwide. That is, the President's order cannot be implemented anywhere in the country and against nobody. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the federal courts have the authority to issue orders blocking nationwide the implementation of executive directive. The majority of the Supreme Court, the conservative six, have ruled that the federal courts do not have the right to issue orders blocking executive directives nationwide. The majority opinion written Justice Amy Cony Barrett had however said that the government cannot implement its orders for 30 days, and the federal courts have been asked to look to give specific remedies to those who have appealed, and not provide relief to everyone across the country. President Trump had of course claimed victory. The Supreme Court was not into playing the political game. The dissident opinion was written by Justice Sotomayor along with Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson. The dissenting judges argued that the federal courts had the right to stop a law that is patently unconstitutional – the President's order saying that anyone born in the United States does not become a citizen – because there is no other alternative. The two sides are arguing slightly different positions. The majority opinion as written by Justice Barrett recognizes the issue whether the President order reversing what is guaranteed by the 14th Constitutional Amendment stands the test of law. Justice Barrett says, '…the principal dissent (Justice Sotomayor) argues because the Executive Order is unconstitutional…' the Executive Branch has no right to impose [it] against anyone. The principal dissent's analysis of the Executive Order is premature because the birthright citizenship issue is not before us. And because the birthright citizenship issue is not before us, we take no position on whether the dissent's analysis is right.' It is clear that Justice Barrett is taking technically right and narrow view of the case before the court. But Justice Mayor in her dissent opinion has laid out the case clearly and in a straightforward manner. She wrote: 'Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens. To remedy that grievous error, the States passed in 1866 and Congress ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today.' Justice Barrett and Justice Sotomayor are arguing along different lines. Justice Barrett will find it hard to wriggle out of the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment. She found an easy way out by saying that the issue was not before the Court. The issue will come up before the Court quite soon, and she and the majority conservatives in the Court will have to take a position.
Dubai Eye
3 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Rwanda, Congo sign peace deal in US to end fighting, attract investment
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo signed a US-brokered peace agreement on Friday, raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement marks a breakthrough in talks held by US President Donald Trump's administration and aims to attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. At a ceremony with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, the two African countries' foreign ministers signed the agreement pledging to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Kinshasa and Kigali will also launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. "They were going at it for many years... it is one of the worst wars that anyone has ever seen. And I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled," Trump said on Friday, ahead of the signing of the deal in Washington. "We're getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it." Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the agreement a turning point. Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner said it must be followed by disengagement. Trump later met both officials in the Oval Office, where he presented them with letters inviting Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame to Washington to sign a package of agreements that Massad Boulos, Trump's senior adviser for Africa, dubbed the "Washington Accord". Nduhungirehe told Trump that past deals had not been implemented and urged Trump to stay engaged. Trump warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if the agreement is violated. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. The gains by M23, the latest cycle in a decades-old conflict with roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, sparked fears that a wider war could draw in Congo's neighbours. ECONOMIC DEALS Boulos told Reuters in May that Washington wanted the peace agreement and accompanying minerals deals to be signed simultaneously this summer. Rubio said on Friday that heads of state would be "here in Washington in a few weeks to finalise the complete protocol and agreement". However, the agreement signed on Friday gives Congo and Rwanda three months to launch a framework "to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains". A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday that another agreement on the framework would be signed by the heads of state at a separate White House event at an unspecified time. There is an understanding that progress in ongoing talks in Doha - a separate but parallel mediation effort with delegations from the Congolese government and M23 - is essential before the signing of the economic framework, the source said. The agreement signed on Friday voiced "full support" for the Qatar-hosted talks. It also says Congo and Rwanda will form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months. Congolese military operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe.
Dubai Eye
3 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
The US 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 to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "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. 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 favour 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.
