Latest news with #federalCourts
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: A stunning and tragic Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a grievous blow to separation of powers by holding that federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to halt unconstitutional actions by the president and the federal government. At a time when President Trump is asserting unprecedented powers, the court made it far more difficult to restrain his unconstitutional actions. The case, Trump vs. CASA, involved the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment provides that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' In 1898, in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that this means that everyone born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, is a United States citizen. The court explained that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was meant to exclude just children born to soldiers in an invading army or those born to diplomats. Trump's executive order directly contradicted this precedent and our national understanding of citizenship by decreeing that only those born here to citizens or to residents with green cards are citizens too. Immediately, several federal courts issued nationwide injunctions to stop this from going into effect. Read more: Supreme Court limits judges' ability to block Trump's birthright citizenship ban But the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, said that federal courts lack the power to issue such orders. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative justices, declared that such universal injunctions 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, put this succinctly: 'Today puts an end to the 'increasingly common' practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.' Indeed, the court's opinion indicated that a federal court can give relief only to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. This is a radical limit on the power of the federal courts. Nothing in any federal law or the Constitution justifies this restriction on the judicial power. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, but it made it far more difficult to stop what is a clearly unconstitutional act. The practical consequences are enormous. It would mean that to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential action or federal law a separate lawsuit will need to be brought in all 94 federal districts. It means that the law often will be different depending on where a person lives. Astoundingly, it could mean that there could be two people born in identical circumstances in different federal districts and one would be a citizen, while the other would not. This makes no sense. It will mean that the president can take an unconstitutional act and even after courts in some places strike it down, continue it elsewhere until all of the federal districts and all of the federal courts of appeals have invalidated it. In fact, the court said that a federal court can give relief only to the named plaintiff, which means that in the context of birthright citizenship each parent affected by the birthright citizenship executive order will need to sue separately. Never before has the Supreme Court imposed such restrictions on the ability of courts to provide relief against unconstitutional acts. The court holds open the possibility of class actions as a way around this. But the requirements for class action litigation are often burdensome, and the Supreme Court has consistently made it much more difficult to bring such suits. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a powerful dissent expressed what this means. She wrote: 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.' Let there be no doubt what this means; the Supreme Court has greatly reduced the power of the federal courts. And it has done so at a time when the federal judiciary may be our only guardrail to protect the Constitution and democracy. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in her dissent, 'The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.' It is a stunning and tragic limit on the power of the courts to enforce the Constitution. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The Independent
06-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.
Washington Post
06-06-2025
- Washington Post
Wrongly deported Salvadoran man charged with human smuggling in 2022
The Justice Department has brought human smuggling charges against a wrongly deported Salvadoran man whose removal to a notorious gang prison ignited a standoff with federal courts, according to an indictment made public Friday. The charges against Kilmar Abrego García, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, mean he could face prosecution in the United States and possible deportation to another country.
RNZ News
10-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Trump admin 'looking at' suspending right to court challenge for detainees
Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Photo: AFP / Jim Watson By AFP A senior White House official says President Donald Trump, as part of his sweeping immigration crackdown , is looking at suspending habeas corpus, the right of a person to challenge their detention in court. "The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters on Friday. "So it's an option we're actively looking at," Miller said. "A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants and has repeatedly referred to their presence in the United States as an "invasion." Since taking office in January, Trump has been seeking to step up deportations, but his efforts have met with pushback from multiple federal courts which have insisted that migrants targeted for removal receive due process. Among other measures, the Republican president invoked an obscure wartime law in March to summarily deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. Several federal courts have blocked further deportations using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and the Supreme Court also weighed in, saying migrants subject to deportation under the AEA must be given an opportunity to legally challenge their removal in court. The AEA was last used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II and was previously invoked during the War of 1812 and World War I. Suspending habeas corpus could potentially allow the administration to dispense with individual removal proceedings and speed up deportations, but the move would almost certainly be met with stiff legal challenges and end up in the Supreme Court. It has been suspended only rarely in US history, most notably by president Abraham Lincoln during the 1861-1865 Civil War and in Hawaii after the December 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. - AFP
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin 'looking at' suspending right to court challenge for detainees
A senior White House official said Friday that President Donald Trump, as part of his sweeping immigration crackdown, is looking at suspending habeas corpus, the right of a person to challenge their detention in court. "The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters. "So it's an option we're actively looking at," Miller said. "A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants and has repeatedly referred to their presence in the United States as an "invasion." Since taking office in January, Trump has been seeking to step up deportations, but his efforts have met with pushback from multiple federal courts which have insisted that migrants targeted for removal receive due process. Among other measures, the Republican president invoked an obscure wartime law in March to summarily deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. Several federal courts have blocked further deportations using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and the Supreme Court also weighed in, saying migrants subject to deportation under the AEA must be given an opportunity to legally challenge their removal in court. The AEA was last used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II and was previously invoked during the War of 1812 and World War I. Suspending habeas corpus could potentially allow the administration to dispense with individual removal proceedings and speed up deportations, but the move would almost certainly be met with stiff legal challenges and end up in the Supreme Court. It has been suspended only rarely in US history, most notably by president Abraham Lincoln during the 1861-1865 Civil War and in Hawaii after the December 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. cl/jgc
