Latest news with #TrumpPolicies


Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.


National Post
12 hours ago
- Politics
- National Post
U.S. Supreme Court ruling gives Trump clearer path to carrying out his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. Article content The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Article content Article content Article content Trump hailed the decision as a 'monumental victory.' By curbing so-called nationwide injunctions, the ruling could help Trump fend off other challenges to his ambitious agenda. Trump and his allies argued that a single judge generally shouldn't have the power to block a federal government policy across the country. Article content Article content 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's conservative majority. 'They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.' Article content 'With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a solemn mockery of our Constitution,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote. 'Rather than stand firm, the court gives way.' Article content Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Article content Article content Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. Article content Article content The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. Article content 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. Article content Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.'


Malay Mail
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
US Supreme Court curbs judges from blocking Trump's controversial policies, as critics warn of ‘step toward authoritarianism'
WASHINGTON, June 28 — US President Donald Trump hailed a 'giant win' yesterday 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 firing 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 stopping funding for transgender people and 'sanctuary cities' for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, 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. 'Step toward authoritarianism' 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. 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 previous 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, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. 'Lawless actions' 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. Trump said that the policy 'was meant for the babies of slaves,' dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. — AFP


Bloomberg
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump's Court Win Opens a Path to Clear Hurdles to His Agenda
The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits.

RNZ News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Trump hails 'giant win' after US Supreme Court curbs judges
By Danny Kemp and Chris Lefkow , AFP US President Donald Trump Photo: AFP / Brendan Smialowski US President Donald Trump said on Friday (US time) 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 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. 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. US President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court bench during his first term. Photo: Getty Images 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. -AFP