Latest news with #ExecutiveBranch
New York Post
2 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Post
The Supreme Court was entirely right to slap down lower-court federal judges who keep trying to play king
Hail to the Supreme Court for definitively slapping down the lower-court judges who've been issuing nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's orders and actions. Though the case touched on birthright citizenship, the court didn't remotely decide that question, nor even offer much hint of how the justices will eventually come down on it. Rather, the court announced that the nation's thousand-plus federal district court judges can no longer routinely stop the Executive Branch dead in its tracks. Advertisement Their rulings can only apply to the plaintiffs actually represented in the case. Though the door is still open to much broader rulings — if the litigants do what's necessary to get certified for a class-action case. But no longer can a single trial-court federal judge in Oregon, Rhode Island or wherever put on hold a president's order to, say, stop billions in spending across the country. Advertisement This is a win not just for Trump, but for the presidency itself — and for the voters of America who elect an executive to institute policy. In just five months, Trump has been slapped with at least 25 national injunctions on everything from spending reforms to education policy and deportation policies. It's a practice without precedent until recent years, though the shoe was on the other foot in the Biden and Obama eras. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Advertisement Which is why Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three dissenters in Friday's ruling, in the past has decried 'all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions.' Yet Democrats and the three liberal justices are again screaming about authoritarian rule and the end of democracy, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisting: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' Which is true, as Justice Amy Comey Barrett noted in her opinion, except: 'That goes for judges too.' Advertisement In other words, 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Exactly: It's up to the Supreme Court to issue national rulings on such constitutional issues; the lower courts should restrict themselves to the litigants before them. 'No kings' must apply to these judges, too.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
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.
eNCA
4 hours ago
- Politics
- eNCA
Trump hails 'giant win' after top court curbs judges
US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a "giant win" by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a tremendous win," Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. "I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling." Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. 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." 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 separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools. 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 big 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. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by 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, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. - 'No right is safe' - 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. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion 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 previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." Trump's initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." 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. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. By Danny Kemp And Chris Lefkow
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.'
India Today
4 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions in win for Trump's immigration agenda
A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this courts, Barrett wrote, '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 president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make was not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges may still be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of a 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American U.S. is amongst about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are amongst and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's have uniformly ruled against the Justice Department has argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.- EndsMust Watch
