Breaking: Supreme Court Issues Big Decision on Birthright Citizenship Case
The article discusses a meaningful ruling by the Supreme Court of the united States at the conclusion of it’s current term.In a 6-3 decision in the case of *Trump v. CASA*, the court favored President Donald Trump by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions that had been used by lower courts to obstruct various administrative policies, including those related to birthright citizenship. The dissenting opinions were voiced by the three female justices-Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan-indicating strong concerns over the implications of this ruling.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, emphasized that individual judges do not have the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, urging that the judiciary must respect its limits while addressing executive actions it views as unlawful. This ruling could considerably impact the Trump governance’s ability to carry out reforms, especially those surrounding immigration and citizenship policies.However, the court left open the potential for future challenges regarding the legality of Trump’s proposals on birthright citizenship via the Administrative Procedure Act.
Friday marks the end of the current term for the Supreme Court of the United States.
And the courts look to be ending the term on a bang.
In the first of several monumental decisions expected, SCOTUS handed President Donald Trump a critical win in his quest to rein in birthright citizenship.
In a 6-3 ruling on Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court voted to narrow nationwide injunctions that had previously hampered Trump on a number of issues — including the birthright citizenship issue.
The three female liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, all dissented.
(Politico reported that Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, which was “a signal of the gravity of her concern and the importance of the case.”)
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, explaining “that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions,” as described by WTMJ.
Barrett also took a bit of a personal shot at one of her fellow justices in explaining the decision.
“In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive,” Barrett wrote. “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’”
She added: “That goes for judges too.”
This could have much broader implications for the Trump administration, as nationwide injunctions have been a frequent tool used by lower court judges to block various reform attempts, such as mass deportation efforts.
While this is undoubtedly a win for the Trump administration, the actual issue of birthright citizenship is still somewhat in the air.
The majority opinion did leave open the door that Trump’s birthright citizenship overhaul could still be found illegal.
“Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action,” Barrett wrote.
The APA is effectively a framework of how the Executive branch should operate.
Regardless, Barrett made clear that what these lower courts were doing in response to what they perceived as illegal acts by Trump was not right.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she wrote.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
