{"id":124482,"date":"2025-06-27T10:03:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T18:03:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/27\/supreme-court-unpersons-nationwide-injunctions-babies-rule-of-law\/"},"modified":"2025-06-27T10:03:34","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T18:03:34","slug":"supreme-court-unpersons-nationwide-injunctions-babies-rule-of-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/27\/supreme-court-unpersons-nationwide-injunctions-babies-rule-of-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Unpersons Nationwide Injunctions, Babies, Rule Of Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, the Supreme Court discovered that district court judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. It\u2019s a brand new policy they unearthed after cheerfully blessing four years of nationwide injunctions issued by some wingnut in Amarillo. Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s 6-3 opinion<\/a> cabins lower federal courts to issuing relief \u201cto the plaintiffs before the court.\u201d So unless you\u2019re willing to sue, the government can violate your rights at will.<\/p>\n

The six conservatives made this miraculous discovery in Trump v. CASA<\/em>, a challenge to President Trump\u2019s executive order banning birthright citizenship. And the president wasted no time celebrating his victory over the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Trump: “Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we’re talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore. That was meant for the babies of slaves.”<\/p>\n

\u2014 Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)<\/a> 2025-06-27T15:53:59.278Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Suck it, Wong Kim Ark!<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court greenlit the administration\u2019s plans to deny social security numbers and passports to thousands of American citizens. They\u2019ll decide whether that\u2019s legal some time next year.<\/p>\n

Justice Barrett insists that plaintiffs are no worse off than they were yesterday: \u201cHere, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship.\u201d But with respect to the rest of the country, \u201c[e]xtending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.\u201d So, unless and until each and every undocumented pregnant person in the country files a lawsuit \u2014 conveniently outing herself as someone to be deported post haste \u2014 federal courts are powerless to stop the Trump administration from violating the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The opinion is larded with a waxy coating of originalism, rhetorical vaseline on the lens, softening the gross illegality and abject cruelty that is the conservative project. The issue isn\u2019t un-personing babies, but rather\u00a0\u201cwhether universal injunctions are sufficiently \u2018analogous\u2019 to the relief issued by the High Court of Chancery in England\u201d in 1798. And \u2014 oh, too bad! \u2014the answer they came up with was that the \u201cbill of peace<\/a>\u201d used by a bunch of dudes in powdered wigs in the 18th century to issue nationwide injunctions isn\u2019t quite close enough<\/em> to count.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Writing for the Court\u2019s liberal dissenters, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ripped the majority\u2019s deliberate use of \u201clegalese\u201d as a \u201csmokescreen\u201d designed to mask the \u201cfar more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?\u201d Apparently not.<\/em><\/p>\n

She also notes that the majority was so busy on its field trip to Ye Old Englande, that it couldn\u2019t be bothered with the threshold question of whether the government met its burden to justify the \u201cextraordinary relief\u201d of staying a lower court\u2019s order: likelihood of success on the merits and \u201cirreparable harm\u201d in the interim absent such relief.<\/p>\n

The majority devotes exactly one sentence to that question in its 30-page opinion, asserting that universal injunctions \u201cimproperly intrude\u201d on the executive branch by preventing the government from \u201cenforcing its policies against nonparties.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Justice Sotomayor points out, the government has no right to enforce an unconstitutional policy against anyone<\/em>, regardless as to whether or not that person is a party before the court or not.<\/p>\n

\u201cSuppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting,\u201d she asks. \u201cIs the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority, in fact, said nothing at all, handwaving away the question of whether the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional as \u201cnot before us,\u201d and therefore \u201cwe take no position on whether the dissent\u2019s analysis is right.\u201d Indeed, they seem wholly uninterested in ensuring that the president follow the law at all.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,\u201d Justice Barrett chides the dissent. \u201cBut the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation\u2014in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.\u201d In support of this proposition, she cites Marbury v. Madison<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Oh, you<\/em> thought the holding of that case was that \u201cIt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Well, not any more.<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a> and Andrew Torrez<\/a> produce the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack <\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Supreme Court Unpersons Nationwide Injunctions, Babies, Rule Of Law<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Today, the Supreme Court discovered that district court judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. It\u2019s a brand new policy they unearthed after cheerfully blessing four years of nationwide injunctions issued by some wingnut in Amarillo. Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s 6-3 opinion<\/a> cabins lower federal courts to issuing relief \u201cto the plaintiffs before the court.\u201d So unless you\u2019re willing to sue, the government can violate your rights at will.<\/p>\n

The six conservatives made this miraculous discovery in Trump v. CASA<\/em>, a challenge to President Trump\u2019s executive order banning birthright citizenship. And the president wasted no time celebrating his victory over the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Trump: “Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases we’re talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore. That was meant for the babies of slaves.”<\/p>\n

\u2014 Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com)<\/a> 2025-06-27T15:53:59.278Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Suck it, Wong Kim Ark!<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court greenlit the administration\u2019s plans to deny social security numbers and passports to thousands of American citizens. They\u2019ll decide whether that\u2019s legal some time next year.<\/p>\n

Justice Barrett insists that plaintiffs are no worse off than they were yesterday: \u201cHere, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship.\u201d But with respect to the rest of the country, \u201c[e]xtending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.\u201d So, unless and until each and every undocumented pregnant person in the country files a lawsuit \u2014 conveniently outing herself as someone to be deported post haste \u2014 federal courts are powerless to stop the Trump administration from violating the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The opinion is larded with a waxy coating of originalism, rhetorical vaseline on the lens, softening the gross illegality and abject cruelty that is the conservative project. The issue isn\u2019t un-personing babies, but rather\u00a0\u201cwhether universal injunctions are sufficiently \u2018analogous\u2019 to the relief issued by the High Court of Chancery in England\u201d in 1798. And \u2014 oh, too bad! \u2014the answer they came up with was that the \u201cbill of peace<\/a>\u201d used by a bunch of dudes in powdered wigs in the 18th century to issue nationwide injunctions isn\u2019t quite close enough<\/em> to count.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Writing for the Court\u2019s liberal dissenters, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ripped the majority\u2019s deliberate use of \u201clegalese\u201d as a \u201csmokescreen\u201d designed to mask the \u201cfar more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?\u201d Apparently not.<\/em><\/p>\n

She also notes that the majority was so busy on its field trip to Ye Old Englande, that it couldn\u2019t be bothered with the threshold question of whether the government met its burden to justify the \u201cextraordinary relief\u201d of staying a lower court\u2019s order: likelihood of success on the merits and \u201cirreparable harm\u201d in the interim absent such relief.<\/p>\n

The majority devotes exactly one sentence to that question in its 30-page opinion, asserting that universal injunctions \u201cimproperly intrude\u201d on the executive branch by preventing the government from \u201cenforcing its policies against nonparties.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Justice Sotomayor points out, the government has no right to enforce an unconstitutional policy against anyone<\/em>, regardless as to whether or not that person is a party before the court or not.<\/p>\n

\u201cSuppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting,\u201d she asks. \u201cIs the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority, in fact, said nothing at all, handwaving away the question of whether the birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional as \u201cnot before us,\u201d and therefore \u201cwe take no position on whether the dissent\u2019s analysis is right.\u201d Indeed, they seem wholly uninterested in ensuring that the president follow the law at all.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,\u201d Justice Barrett chides the dissent. \u201cBut the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation\u2014in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.\u201d In support of this proposition, she cites Marbury v. Madison<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Oh, you<\/em> thought the holding of that case was that \u201cIt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Well, not any more.<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a> and Andrew Torrez<\/a> produce the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack <\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Supreme Court Unpersons Nationwide Injunctions, Babies, Rule Of Law<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today, the Supreme Court discovered that district court judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. It\u2019s a brand new policy they unearthed after cheerfully blessing four years of nationwide injunctions issued by some wingnut in Amarillo. Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s 6-3 opinion cabins lower federal courts to issuing relief \u201cto the plaintiffs before the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}