Latest news with #judicialoverreach
Sky News
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
Sky News
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Trump's 'giant win' frees him up to push on with his agenda with fewer blocks and barriers
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
Al Jazeera
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court limits courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts likely overstepped their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, limiting the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power. Friday's decision came in response to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts which sought to block President Donald Trump's ability to curtail the right to birthright citizenship. 'Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,' the court's majority said in its decision. 'The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions.' But, the court said, that stay applies 'only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary'. The decision was a major victory for the Trump administration, which has denounced 'judicial overreach' as an unconstitutional obstacle to its policies. Lower courts had come out strongly against Trump's efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, a right established under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which was adopted in the wake of the US Civil War. The amendment declared that 'all persons born' in the US and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' would be citizens. The courts have repeatedly interpreted that text as granting citizenship to nearly all people born in the US, regardless of their parents' nationalities. There were limited exceptions, including for the children of diplomats. But in his 2024 re-election bid, Trump campaigned on a platform that would see the Fourteenth Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants. The new policy, his platform said, 'will make clear that going forward, the children of illegal aliens will not be granted automatic citizenship'. On the first day of his second term, January 20, he followed through on that campaign promise, signing an executive order called, 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship'. But immigration advocates said that Trump's policy violated the Constitution, and lower courts sided with them, issuing nationwide injunctions that barred the executive order from taking effect. More details to come…
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
15 judges, 1 target: Trump escalates war on the judiciary
The Trump administration launched its latest attack on judges, targeting all 15 judges on the Maryland federal bench, continuing the ongoing feud between the executive and judicial branches that has persisted since President Donald Trump began his second term. The U.S. Department of Justice filed its complaint earlier this week in response to the Maryland court's habeas corpus filed last month by its Chief Judge George L. Russell III. In what the Justice Department called an 'egregious example of judicial overreach,' the brief order requires every apparent illegal immigration case be granted a temporary injunction 'upon its filing, and its terms shall remain in effect until 4 p.m. on the second business day following the filing of the Petition, unless the terms of this Order are further extended by the presiding judge,' per the order. The Trump administration viewed the order as the work of district court judges who 'have used and abused their equitable powers' to undermine Trump's immigration policy enforcement. 'President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.' Although filed in the Maryland court where they are suing the judges, the Justice Department requested that every judge recuse themselves and allow the issue to be heard before an outside judge who can take over or transfer the case to a different court district. Among the judges included in the lawsuit is Paul Xinis, who is overseeing the high-profile deportation case of Salvadorian national Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Accused of being an MS-13 gang member, Abrego Garcia was deported and sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center, a megaprison in El Salvador, last March. He gained national attention as part of the Trump administration's efforts to deport suspected immigrant gang members living illegally in the U.S. — painted as a hardened criminal by the administration and as a victim by Trump's opponents.
Fox News
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump DHS sues entire bench of federal judges in Maryland district court over automatic injunctions
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is suing all 15 judges on the Maryland federal bench, arguing the court's policy of automatically pausing certain immigration cases that come before it is unlawful. Attorneys for the Trump administration argued to the very court they are suing that the policy, imposed through an order the court issued in May, is an "egregious example of judicial overreach." "A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law," the attorneys wrote in a filing Tuesday. "Nor does their status within the judicial branch." The Maryland court's standing order requires clerks to immediately enter temporary administrative injunctions in cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants who are challenging their detention. The automatic injunctions in these cases, known as habeas corpus cases, temporarily bar the DHS from deporting or changing the legal status of the immigrant in question for two business days. In its order, the court said it did this out of scheduling convenience to make sure the "status quo" is preserved when a case is filed. The order cited a higher volume than usual of cases involving detained immigrants who are attempting to prevent the government from keeping them detained or deporting them. "The recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees purportedly subject to improper and imminent removal from the United States that have been filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive," the court order stated. The Trump administration also asked the court in a follow-up motion that all the judges-turned-defendants recuse themselves from the case and bring in an outside judge to take over or transfer the case to a different court district. The unusual lawsuit comes as President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda encounters roadblocks involving individual immigrants using legal avenues afforded to them through U.S. immigration laws to raise challenges and appeals to their deportations. In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis, who is now one of the named defendants in the new case, ordered the Trump administration to return to the United States a Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador in March before he was returned months later to face trafficking charges. The case became the first known instance of the Trump administration erroneously deporting an illegal immigrant before affording him legally-required due process.
