Washington – The Supreme Court on Friday limited the use of nationwide prohibitions, continuing the ability of federal judges to issue comprehensive orders, which in recent years implement the implementation of policies from Republican and Democratic President administration in recent years.
Demand to terminate in a widely anticipated decision ending by President Trump’s executive order Congenital citizenshipThe High Court said that the possibility of universal orders is more than equal rights that the Congress has given to the federal courts. Justice Amy Koni Barrett wrote Majority opinion For 6-3 courts, with liberal judicial justice in dissatisfaction.
The court requested the Trump administration to narrow the reach of the prohibitions who block the executive order of the President, while the proceedings go ahead, but “to the extent to the extent the prohibitions are more wider than the required to provide completely relief” the plane can sue, the Barrett wrote. Justice did not address the question whether Mr. Trump’s order is constitutional, and the administration has said that agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance regarding the implementation of policy, which allows time for more challenges.
“Some say that give universal prohibition”[s] A powerful tool to investigate the judiciary Executive Branch. ‘But the federal courts do not use the general inspection of the executive branch; They resolve cases and disputes that are conforming to the authority, the Congress has given them, “Barrett has written.” When a court concluded that the executive branch has worked illegally, the answer is no more than its power for the court. ,
In her dissatisfaction, Justice Sonia Sotomore accused most of abandoning her role in protecting the rule of law. He read parts of his disagreeable opinion from the bench.
“With a stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘serious fake’ of our constitution,” he wrote. “Instead of the stand firm, the court gives way.”
At a White House News Conference after the verdict, Mr. Trump Praise it As “a monumental victory for the constitution, separation of powers, and rule of law.”
A case of universal prohibition and congenital citizenship
The court’s decision came under the emergency appeal by the Trump administration, generated by the President’s executive order, IllizingWhich means that everyone born in America is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Was justice department Asked Supreme Court To narrow the scope of three separate prohibitions blocking the implementation of Shri Trump’s policy, while the legal challenges brought by 22 states, the rights groups of immigrants and seven persons proceeded.
But rather than deciding whether to provide emergency relief of the Trump administration, the Supreme Court argued whether nationwide, or universal, prohibitory use, which is to restrict the use of prohibitory orders, which are judicial orders, which prevent the government from implementing policy anywhere in the country and against anyone, there are also people who are not involved in their first lawsuits.
Controversy over the President’s effort to open birth appreciated citizenship has been interconnected with the administration’s fight against nationwide prohibitions. These comprehensive orders have disappointed both Democratic and Republican presidents, seeking to implement their agenda between the gridlock in the Congress, and the fight over them has been boiling for many years.
Congress research service Identified 86 nationwide prohibitions that were released during the first term of Mr. Trump and 28 were given, while the former President who was in the Biden office. In the second term of Mr. Trump, the Congress Research Service found that 17 nationwide prohibitions were issued during the first 100 days, although the Trump administration had last month estimated that at least 40 of these orders were coming from, and the highest number of five judicial districts.
There are some Justices suggested In Previous writing The Supreme Court must clarify whether nationwide prohibitory orders are allowed, and members of both conceptual aspects of the bench are important to them. The President and his colleagues have Judges attacked To release nationwide prohibitory orders due to legal challenges for the policies of Shri Trump, and even for Some should be impered,
The President’s congenital citizenship order was one of the first he signed back to the office on his first day. While for the 14th amendment, all those born in the US for more than a century have been understood to guarantee citizenship, the order of Shri Trump denied the innate citizenship to a mother born to a mother, who exists illegally in the US or which is present on a temporary basis; Or whose father is neither a citizen nor a legitimate permanent resident. The President directed the federal agencies to issue documents giving American citizenship to children in those categories born after February 19.
More than half a dozen cases challenging the measure were filed before it became effective, and in three federal district courts Washington, Maryland And Massachusetts Each stopped the government from implementing the order. The federal appeal courts in California, Massachusetts and Virginia then denied requests by the Trump administration to partially block the orders of the lower court.
The Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal of three decisions with the Supreme Court in mid -March and asked 28 states and individuals to limit the enforcement of the order of congenital citizenship which are not involved in cases. The administration said that the Supreme Court, at least, should allow agencies to develop and issue public guidance, while the proceedings continue, and the target is taken Width of prohibitions Was issued by district courts. Government lawyers said in a filing that Mr. Trump has reached the “epidemic” ratio universal prohibition since returning to the White House in January.
Solicitor General D. John Solar wrote“They repeatedly disrupt the operation of the executive branch up to the cabinet level.”
But in the cases, the plaintiff urged the Supreme Court to give up the orders of the district court. One in Admission The districts of their own, 18 states, Colombia and San Francisco, called the Request of the Trump administration “notable”, as it would allow the government to snatch hundreds of thousands of American-born children of its citizenship, while legal challenges move forward and presents them “at birth and at risk of luxury”.
States argued that the Trump administration wants to violate the Supreme Court’s example, which is a guarantee of congenital citizenship by the 14th amendment.
Court decision
While writing for the majority, the Barrett saw the history of the country and said that the nationwide prohibitory orders were “clearly no” in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. If the federal courts had such a device, he said, “Surely they would not let it be inactive.”
He wrote, “Anything like a universal prohibition was not available for more than a century, or for that case.
In his dissatisfaction, Sotomore warned that the new rule of the Supreme Court risks all types of constitutional rights and presents them to those who are not parties for a lawsuit.
“Today, the danger is congenital citizenship,” he wrote. “Yesterday, a separate administration may try to prevent people from seizing firearms or gathering some beliefs from citizens who follow the law.”
Sotomore alleged to ignore the conservative majority of the court, whether the plan to abolish the citizenship of Mr. Trump’s birthright citizen is constitutional and said that its “patent illegalness” underlines why universal prohibitory orders are appropriate measures.
While the High Court agreed to give Mr. Trump’s request for partial migration of prohibitory orders, Barrett wrote that there are still issues for lower courts, it also includes whether narrow relief is appropriate.
The Supreme Court’s decision still allows the plaintiff to register a class-action cases and challenge a policy to seek authentication of a nationwide class. In his dissatisfaction, Sotomayor urged individuals who could be affected by Shri Trump’s birthright citizenship scheme as well as lower courts, to move fast.
,[T]He will be well advised to the parents of the children covered by the order of citizenship to file a class-action suit immediately and temporarily request prohibitory relief relief for the cycle pending square certification, “She wrote.” Review on such request, such as challenging policies for suits, such as citizenship orders. “
On the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, Casa, one of the groups who challenged the order, told the federal district court to allow their case to move forward on a class basis and certify as a class “All children who are born in the United States on February 19, 2025, which are nominated for birthright.”
