The Supreme Court recently engaged in a lengthy oral argument regarding the Trump administration's executive order to end birthright citizenship, which many view as unconstitutional. The focus, however, was less on the order's merits and more on the procedural rights of plaintiffs if the order were deemed unconstitutional. Solicitor General D. John Sauer implied a willingness to enforce the order until the Court intervened. This case has reignited debates about the increased use of universal injunctions, which judges employ to check presidential actions, demonstrating a shift in judicial responses over recent administrations.
The argument centered around the power of federal judges to issue universal injunctions, sparking a debate over presidential overreach and the constitutional implications of Trump's order.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer implied that President Trump might enforce the controversial executive order until explicit directions to cease come from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court discussed the procedural aspects of how relief could be granted to plaintiffs regarding Trump's executive order, not the constitutionality itself.
Universal injunctions, once rare, have become standard practice against perceived presidential overreach, reflecting the changing partisan dynamics within the judicial response.
Collection
[
|
...
]