Latest news with #JohnSauer
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
A blow to judicial power and a win for Donald Trump
A year ago John Sauer, then Donald Trump's personal lawyer, persuaded six justices to hand the presidential candidate sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. On June 27th Mr Sauer, now Mr Trump's solicitor general, notched another huge victory for his boss—one that will enhance the power of future presidents, too. Whereas Trump v United States articulated a capacious standard of presidential immunity and cleared the way for Mr Trump to complete his campaign free of legal jeopardy, Trump v CASA liberates him from nationwide injunctions—the most potent tool judges have been using to thwart his agenda. It was, as Mr Trump wrote on social media, a 'GIANT WIN'. On the surface, Trump v CASA was about Mr Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary-visa holders. That proclamation, issued on his first day back in office, departed from more than 125 years of understanding that the 14th amendment promises citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalised' in America. Three district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, with one judge (appointed by Ronald Reagan) calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. But when the Department of Justice (DoJ) approached the Supreme Court, it did not request a wholesale reversal of any of these decisions—an apparent recognition that the justices, too, would likely see the order as unconstitutional. Instead the DoJ asked the justices to limit the injunctions to the litigants who brought the cases: a group of pregnant women, the members of two immigrants-right organisations and 22 states, plus San Francisco and the District of Columbia. By doing so the DoJ invited the justices to turn from the question of 'birthright citizenship' to the broader question of district judges usurping executive power by issuing nationwide or 'universal' injunctions. The tack may have been cynical, but it was effective. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 26-page majority opinion is an indictment of such injunctions. The trend of individual district-court judges blocking presidential actions has held 'across administrations', wrote Justice Barrett. During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the tool was used about 25 times. Congress has granted judges 'no such power', she argued, and universal injunctions are not a valid application of the judicial role. The practice was unheard of until the 20th century. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation'. The three liberal justices dissented vigorously. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that '[n]o right is safe in the new legal regime' of Trump v CASA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president authority 'to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued', posing 'an existential threat to the rule of law'. Soon, she cautioned, 'executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more'. To this, Justice Barrett had a rejoinder: 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The blast zone from Trump v CASA could be wide. As the majority noted, judges across America have been issuing nationwide injunctions to stymie a host of Mr Trump's policies, from eliminating foreign aid appropriated by Congress to imposing new voter-identification rules. The DoJ is expected to promptly file motions to lift the injunctions. Moving forward, America's 677 district-court judges will be deprived of a particularly powerful tool. But there are other ways that the judicial system can deal with broad violations of the constitution or individual rights. One is class-action lawsuits, whereby one or several named plaintiffs, or an organisation, sue on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs across America. All pregnant women without legal status, for example, could be a 'class' that courts recognise as entitled to relief from Mr Trump's birthright-citizenship proclamation. But this form of litigation has high procedural hurdles and classes can take months to certify—a process the Supreme Court has made increasingly difficult in recent years. In the case of birthright citizenship, there is another possibility that Justice Barrett's opinion explicitly leaves open to the lower courts. The cost and administrative burden of tracking the immigration status of babies traveling around the country, for example, could make anything less than a comprehensive bar on Mr Trump's policy unworkable for the 22 states seeking relief. So these states have a plausible argument that the only injunction that can ease their burden is one that blocks Mr Trump's executive order everywhere. Justice Barrett closed her opinion by delaying implementation of the court's decision for 30 days. That gives the plaintiffs until July 27th to hasten back to district courts to file class-action cases or argue that a blanket injunction against Mr Trump's policies is required to grant the suing parties 'complete relief'. If neither of these efforts is successful, the country could be left with a patchwork of rules that grants citizenship to the baby of an undocumented mother born in Minnesota, but not one born in Mississippi (at least until the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order is decided by the high court). The 6-3 split in Trump v CASA reveals a court that remains deeply divided over executive power. For those hoping to challenge the president's more aggressive policies, the courthouse doors remain open—but the path to meaningful relief is considerably narrower.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump celebrates Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling
President Trump on Friday celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that allowed his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country. He called the ruling a 'giant win' and announced that he will be speaking about it in a press conference at 11:30 a.m. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 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. News Conference at the White House, 11:30 A.M. EST,' he said on Truth Social. The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions, allowing blocks on Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in Democratic-run states that have filed challenges against it. In the other states, the Trump administration may resume developing guidance to implement the order, though they 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. The limits nationwide injunctions will likely have a significant impact on legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration is locked in battles over injunctions against many of Trump's policies. Attorney General Pan Bondi also took a victory lap after the ruling, celebrating what she described as the end to injunctions against Trump. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on X. She continues, 'This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump celebrates Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling
President Trump on Friday celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that allowed his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country. He called the ruling a 'giant win' and announced that he will be speaking about it in a press conference at 11:30 a.m. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 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. News Conference at the White House, 11:30 A.M. EST,' he said on Truth Social. The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions, allowing blocks on Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in Democratic-run states that have filed challenges against it. In the other states, the Trump administration may resume developing guidance to implement the order, though they 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. The limits nationwide injunctions will likely have a significant impact on legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration is locked in battles over injunctions against many of Trump's policies. Attorney General Pan Bondi also took a victory lap after the ruling, celebrating what she described as the end to injunctions against Trump. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on X. She continues, 'This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.'
Wall Street Journal
30-05-2025
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Nationwide Injunctions? Only if the Supreme Court Has Spoken
Nationwide injunctions came before the Supreme Court in an emergency oral argument this month. The justices are clearly concerned about the practice, in which a lone federal trial judge can block a government policy even if other judges have upheld it. But the government failed to offer a satisfactory solution. There is, however, a clean and simple fix that the court itself could effectuate. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions are flat-out unconstitutional. In response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said that means even the Supreme Court couldn't issue one—a position the justices are unlikely to favor.
The Guardian
28-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
White House asks supreme court to block challenges to deportations to South Sudan
The Trump administration asked the US supreme court late on Tuesday to halt an order allowing people to challenge their deportations from the US to South Sudan, an appeal that came hours after the federal judge overseeing the case suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric'. Judge Brian Murphy found the White House violated a court order with a deportation flight bound for the chaotic African nation carrying people from other countries who the Trump administration said had been convicted of crimes in the US. Murphy said those people must get a real chance to raise any fears that being sent there could put them in danger. 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that defendants [the Trump administration] invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in his 17-page order. The federal government argued that Murphy has stalled its efforts to carry out deportations of people who can't be returned to their home countries. Finding countries willing to take them is a 'a delicate diplomatic endeavor' and the court requirements are a major setback, the US solicitor general, John Sauer, wrote in an emergency appeal asking the court to immediately halt his order. Murphy, a district judge in Massachusetts, said he had given the Trump administration 'remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight' in the case and emphasized the numerous times he attempted to work with the government, according to an order published on Monday night. This is the latest case in which federal judges weighing in on the legality of the Trump administration's sweeping agenda have used forceful, sometimes even scathing language to register their displeasure. The Trump administration has accused judges of thwarting 'the will of voters' by stopping or slowing the White House agenda, a dramatic break in attitude about the role of the judiciary in interpreting the rule of law. In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight people had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the US for hearings – as the plaintiffs wanted – he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti, where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan, as long as the men remained in US government custody. Their exact whereabouts and status at that time was not made public. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location'. Murphy, though, said it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated,' the Boston-based Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden, wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home countries – including Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam – would not take them back. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take people who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the US that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them, including Panama and El Salvador. The Associated Press contributed reporting
