Latest news with #judicialpower
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Ruling Could Unleash Trump Agenda
When Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky used contradictory justifications to give Donald Trump two of his three Supreme Court picks in his first term, Democrats warned that the Kentucky Republican's unapologetic violation of Senate norms would have tectonic consequences. On Friday, in the high court's usual end-of-term reveal, one of those consequences arrived. The court's six-member GOP-appointed supermajority curtailed one of the few powers federal judges have to restrain Trump's effort to consolidate power in a fashion unseen in the nation's 249-year history. Trump's picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined fellow Republican-appointees in ruling that lower courts in most cases can no longer issue nationwide injunctions, even when—as in the case of Trump's attempt to deprive some babies born on American soil of citizenship—they are intended to halt facially unconstitutional measures.
Wall Street Journal
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Praises Supreme Court Decision on Rulings Against Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court imposed new restrictions on the power of individual judges to issue orders with nationwide effect, but left President Trump's push to curtail birthright citizenship uncertain. Photo:
New York Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
How the Supreme Court's Ruling Could Revive Some Contested Trump Policies
The Supreme Court's opinion setting new limits on the power of district-court judges to use one of their most potent tools — nationwide injunctions — marks the beginning of a profound shift in the way the federal courts do business. Before, more than 1,000 judges had the power to issue nationwide orders that could stop the federal government in its tracks. Now, those judges' rulings can only apply to the actual plaintiffs in the case. Friday's opinion could affect any case, on any issue, where a federal judge makes a ruling that extends beyond the party or parties that actually brought the lawsuit. It left open the possibility that judges could still block government actions nationwide, but only in situations where there was no narrower approach available that would protect the actual plaintiffs whom the court is seeking to benefit. Friday's ruling will lead to a drastic reduction in the federal courts' ability to check the White House, according to Judith Resnik, a professor at Yale Law School. Nationwide injunctions give courts 'the capacity to tell the key nationwide actor, the executive branch, to behave lawfully,' she said. District-court judges have repeatedly used nationwide injunctions to block Trump administration policies, including to halt the firing of civil servants, the defunding of foreign aid and the relocation of transgender women in federal prisons to men's housing. Some of those injunctions have been lifted by higher courts; many, including those detailed below, remain in place, at least for now. While some scholars trace the origins of nationwide injunctions, also known as 'universal' injunctions, back to the early 20th century, their widespread use as a check on presidential power is relatively new and has been wielded against presidents of both parties. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
US supreme court limits judges' power on nationwide injunctions in apparent win for Trump
The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump's attempt to limit district judges' power to block his orders on a nationwide basis, in an emergency appeal related to the birthright citizenship case but with wide implications for the executive branch's power. The court's opinion on the constitutionality of whether some American-born children can be deprived of citizenship remains undecided and the fate of the US president's order to overturn birthright citizenship rights was left unclear. But the court's fractured 6-3 ruling has left the fate of the president's order to strip citizenship from some American-born children dangling in constitutional uncertainty without deciding whether newborns can be deprived of their rights if their parents lack legal status. The court's ruling in Trump v CASA, Inc will boost Trump's potential to enforce citizenship restrictions, in this and other cases in future, in states where courts had not specifically blocked them, creating a chaotic patchwork. Trump's January executive order sought to deny birthright citizenship to babies born on US soil if their parents lack legal immigration status – defying the 14th amendment's guarantee that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States' are citizens – and made justices wary during the hearing. The real fight in Trump v CASA Inc, wasn't about immigration but judicial power. Trump's lawyers demanded that nationwide injunctions blocking presidential orders be scrapped, arguing judges should only protect specific plaintiffs who sue – not the entire country. Three judges blocked Trump's order nationwide after he signed it on inauguration day, which would enforce citizenship restrictions in states where courts hadn't specifically blocked them. The policy targeted children of both undocumented immigrants and legal visa holders, demanding that at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident or US citizen. The 14th amendment to the US constitution's citizenship clause overturned the 1857 Dred Scott ruling that denied citizenship to Black Americans. The principle has stood since 1898, when the supreme court granted citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who could not naturalize. More details soon…
Free Malaysia Today
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia
In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
