Clarence Thomas Makes the Point of the Day as Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Birthright Citizenship Case

Conservative News DailyMay 16, 2025

0 0

The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in the case of Trump v. CASA, which addresses the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential orders. At the center of the case is President Trump’s executive order interpreting the 14th Amendment concerning citizenship for children born to non-citizens. Several federal district courts have issued injunctions against this order, leading to appeals upheld by higher courts. During the arguments, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer noted that the trend of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions is a relatively recent phenomenon, especially in light of the 40 injunctions against President Trump in just four months. Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized the rarity of such injunctions prior to the 1960s, suggesting that their rise is concerning. The discussion also touched upon option legal remedies, like class action lawsuits, as possible solutions. The justices appeared divided on whether federal judges should possess the power to block presidential actions on a national scale, indicating uncertainty about the direction of the court’s ruling.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made perhaps the most important point of the day during oral arguments Thursday in a case involving federal district judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.

The specific case of Trump v. CASA concerns whether federal district courts have the power to impose nationwide injunctions blocking presidential decisions.

On his first day in office in January, Trump issued an executive order interpreting the language of the 14th Amendment, which states only those born to parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens.

The impact would be that when children are born to people who are not legal residents, the children are not U.S. citizens.

Several lawsuits were filed around the country seeking to block the implementation of Trump’s order. Federal district courts issued injunctions putting it on hold, and then federal appeals courts in San Francisco, Boston, and Richmond, Virginia, upheld their decisions.

Trump U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued when being questioned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday that the phenomenon of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions is relatively new in the nation’s history, becoming prominent in the last four or five administrations.

Further, they have been meted out in unprecedented numbers against Trump, with 40 in the last four months, he said.

Sauer directed Kavanaugh to the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a reference point. “There were very, very passionate challenges to nationwide policies during the Roosevelt administration, and they were not addressed by issuing universal injunctions,” the solicitor general highlighted.

Solicitor General John Sauer compares the Trump administration to the New Deal👀

Even when judges held New Deal policies illegal, they issued “hundreds of injunctions protecting individual plaintiffs,” rather than nationwide injunctions, he says. pic.twitter.com/Qti8QdyXeI

— Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025

Sauer also addressed the Supreme Court’s past rulings on whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

“So when the [Supreme Court] has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court,’” the attorney argued.

Then Thomas made the most important observation of the day by asking, “So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?”

Important point at the Supreme Court today☝️

“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Justice Clarence Thomas asks.

“Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s,” John Sauer responds. “It exploded in 2007.”https://t.co/QhpJ0kFFg2 pic.twitter.com/Izh1DLyUFJ

— Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025

“That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s,” Sauer responded. “It really exploded in 2007.”

Court watchers do not have a good sense of how the justices will ultimately rule on the matter following Thursday’s oral arguments.

Amy Howe wrote for SCOTUSBlog that the high court was “divided over whether a federal judge has the power to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship while the case moves through the lower courts.”

USA Today reported that several of the justices appeared to be probing Sauer, looking to find a good alternative to the nationwide injunction.

The lawyer offered one alternative, in many cases, would be a class action lawsuit under current federal court rules. Once a judge establishes a class of people impacted by an executive order, then any person in the class can benefit from the ultimate decision in the case.

Something clearly has to give. A federal district court judge should not have more power than the president to decide national policy.

Only the Supreme Court has national jurisdiction to decide if a president’s policy runs afoul of federal law or the Constitution. And the high court can address any case on an emergency basis, if necessary, and issue a national injunction when appropriate.