Supreme Court Set to Address Universal Injunctions Amid Trump’s Controversial Citizenship Policy

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff   

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

---

Image Source: Maureen Groppe

As President Donald Trump faces significant legal challenges to his administration's policies, the Supreme Court is poised to hear a pivotal case on May 15 that could reshape the landscape of federal injunctions. The case centers on Trump’s executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, a move that has been met with widespread criticism and legal opposition.

Judges across the nation have blocked several of Trump’s key policy initiatives, which he has labeled as “toxic and unprecedented.” The president is now looking to the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of multiple court orders that have kept his citizenship policy on hold, arguing that the injunctions should only apply to the specific litigants involved in the lawsuits rather than imposing a nationwide pause.

The Justice Department contends that allowing judges to issue broad injunctions undermines the executive branch's ability to function effectively. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” the department stated in a filing to the Supreme Court.

Opponents of Trump’s policy, including New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, argue that the citizenship of the more than 150,000 children born annually in the U.S. should not be contingent upon the state of birth or the involvement of specific litigants. “That’s not what the Constitution says,” Platkin asserted, emphasizing the need for uniformity in citizenship rights across the nation.

The issue of nationwide injunctions has gained prominence in recent years, with both Democratic and Republican administrations facing similar legal challenges. Legal scholars note that the trend began in 2015 when Texas sued the Obama administration over immigration policies, leading to a surge in nationwide injunctions against presidential actions. Trump’s administration faced 64 such injunctions during his first term, a number that has continued to grow.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case signals a potential shift in how federal courts handle universal injunctions. Some justices, including Neil Gorsuch, have previously criticized the practice, calling it “unworkable” and urging the court to address the issue. Justice Elena Kagan has also expressed concerns about the ability of a single district judge to halt nationwide policies.

As the court prepares to deliberate, legal experts are divided on the potential outcomes. Some believe the justices may reaffirm the use of universal injunctions, while others predict a ruling that could restrict or eliminate them altogether. Regardless of the outcome, the case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the role of federal courts in relation to executive power and the scope of judicial relief.

With the stakes high for both the Trump administration and the future of citizenship rights in the U.S., the Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the branches of government and the rights of individuals under the Constitution.