Latest news with #separationOfPowers
Yahoo
11 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 Herald
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald
Ramaphosa to make judiciary fully independent of justice department
Ramaphosa said the dependence of the judiciary on the government has been odd. 'A joint committee is now in action to finalise this whole process of the independence of the judiciary. It has been an anomaly of our constitutional architecture that we've had parliament as an independent institution in our constitution fully and properly recognised, and the executive — but the judiciary has on an unfair basis had to depend on government on a variety of matters from getting approval on the appointment of people and not even being in complete control of their own budget,' said Ramaphosa. 'This comes to an end now. The judiciary will be independent. We will ensure the judiciary is rightly constituted as an equal branch of the state, same level as the executive and the legislature.' At the meeting with the senior leaders of the judiciary led by the chief justice earlier this month, Ramaphosa and minister of justice Mmamoloko Kubayi committed to ensuring the independence of the state. 'Within the principle of the separation of powers, each arm of the state has a responsibility to co-operate with, and provide support to, the other arms of the state in giving full effect to our constitution. It requires, in particular, that we create conditions in which each arm of the state can fulfil their respective mandates without hindrance,' said Ramaphosa at the time. 'It is an opportunity to develop common approaches on issues that are critical to the effective functioning of the judiciary. At the core of our deliberations is our shared commitment to safeguarding and entrenching the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that it has the space and means to administer justice.' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said as much as the judiciary has always been independent, some aspects including its finances have been under the department. 'It's always been independent but on some administrative aspects they were dependent on the department. So those administrative areas will now be fully managed by the judiciary as they should be,' he said. TimesLIVE
CBS News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down GOP law weakening attorney general's power
A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago. The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said. The Republican-controlled Legislature convened a session in December 2018 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul defeated Republican incumbents. The laws signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his way out the door weakened powers of both offices. At issue in the case decided Tuesday was the attorney general's power to settle lawsuits involving environmental and consumer protection cases as well as cases involving the governor's office and executive branch. The new law required the Legislature's budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans, to sign off on those settlements. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, when controlled by conservatives, upheld all of the lame duck laws and ruled they did not violate the separation of powers principle. But the ruling left the door open to future challenges on how the laws are applied. Kaul sued that year, arguing that having to seek approval for those lawsuit settlements violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature argued that lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the settlement of lawsuits and that the court's earlier ruling saying there was no separation of powers violation should stand. Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, who won election to the state Supreme Court in April and will be joining the court in August, ruled in favor of Kaul in 2022 saying the law was unconstitutional. A state appeals court overturned her ruling December, saying there was no separation of powers violation because both the executive and legislative branches of government share the powers in question. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Legislature cannot "assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote." There is no constitutional justification for requiring the Legislature's budget committee to sign off on court settlements at issue in the case, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Kaul praised the ruling, saying in a statement that the decision "finally puts an end to the legislature's unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases." Republican legislative leaders who defended the law had no immediate comment Tuesday. The win for Kaul comes as Evers has been unsuccessful in overturning numerous law changes affecting the power of the governor. He's proposed undoing the laws in all four state budgets he's proposed and courts have upheld the laws when challenged.
CBS News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down Republican law weakening attorney general's power
A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago. The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said. The Republican-controlled Legislature convened a session in December 2018 after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul defeated Republican incumbents. The laws signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker on his way out the door weakened powers of both offices. At issue in the case decided Tuesday was the attorney general's power to settle lawsuits involving environmental and consumer protection cases as well as cases involving the governor's office and executive branch. The new law required the Legislature's budget committee, which is controlled by Republicans, to sign off on those settlements. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2020, when controlled by conservatives, upheld all of the lame duck laws and ruled they did not violate the separation of powers principle. But the ruling left the door open to future challenges on how the laws are applied. Kaul sued that year, arguing that having to seek approval for those lawsuit settlements violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The Legislature argued that lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the settlement of lawsuits and that the court's earlier ruling saying there was no separation of powers violation should stand. Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, who won election to the state Supreme Court in April and will be joining the court in August, ruled in favor of Kaul in 2022 saying the law was unconstitutional. A state appeals court overturned her ruling December, saying there was no separation of powers violation because both the executive and legislative branches of government share the powers in question. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Legislature cannot "assume for itself the power to execute a law it wrote." There is no constitutional justification for requiring the Legislature's budget committee to sign off on court settlements at issue in the case, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote for the court. Kaul praised the ruling, saying in a statement that the decision "finally puts an end to the legislature's unconstitutional involvement in the resolution of key categories of cases." Republican legislative leaders who defended the law had no immediate comment Tuesday. The win for Kaul comes as Evers has been unsuccessful in overturning numerous law changes affecting the power of the governor. He's proposed undoing the laws in all four state budgets he's proposed and courts have upheld the laws when challenged.
Washington Post
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down GOP law weakening attorney general's power
MADISON, Wis. — A unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the Democratic state attorney general Tuesday in a long-running battle over a law passed by Republicans who wanted to weaken the office in a lame duck legislative session more than six years ago. The court ruled 7-0 that requiring the attorney general to get permission from a Republican-controlled legislative committee to settle certain lawsuits was unconstitutional. The law is a separation of powers violation, the court said.
