Trump Appeals to Supreme Court to Limit Judges' Nationwide Blocking of Policies
The urgent appeal arises amidst the conflict regarding birthright citizenship, but it may lead to broader implications in various cases contesting several elements of Trump's agenda.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court to eliminate a significant tool that lower courts have utilized to obstruct various aspects of his agenda.
In an emergency appeal on Thursday, Trump requested that the justices restrict or suspend three nationwide injunctions from lower-court judges blocking his initiative to end birthright citizenship. However, this request may have implications that extend beyond the contentious citizenship issue.
Nationwide injunctions have been used by judges to impede many of Trump’s initiatives, including attempts to abolish “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” programs and cuts to federal medical research.
Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, contended before the Supreme Court that federal district judges lack the authority to issue sweeping orders that halt policies on a national scale. Instead, she proposed that an injunction should be limited to the geographic district of the judge or apply solely to the specific individuals or groups that filed the lawsuit.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” Harris stated, arguing that administrations from both parties have criticized this practice, which has reached “epidemic proportions” during Trump’s current term.
Harris pointed out that lower-court judges issued 15 nationwide blocks against Trump administration actions in February, even though some policies were blocked by multiple judges. This one-month total surpasses the 14 nationwide injunctions that were issued against the federal government in President Joe Biden’s first three years, according to her citation of a law review study.
The injunctions that prompted Trump’s emergency appeal were related to his Day 1 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. This order aims to prevent U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants or those in the country on short-term visas.
Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state individually blocked the order from being enacted nationwide, asserting that it blatantly contradicts the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
At this stage, Trump is not requesting the Supreme Court to evaluate the executive order’s constitutionality. Instead, he seeks to narrow down two of the injunctions and lift the third entirely—an appeal Harris characterized as “modest.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris argued.
The tendency for individual federal judges to issue injunctions that completely halt federal policies has faced extensive and growing criticism in recent times. Many legal scholars have raised concerns about them, and both Democratic and Republican administrations have opposed them. Two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have publicly expressed skepticism regarding their constitutionality.
Critics argue that nationwide injunctions grant too much power to district judges, encouraging administration opponents to file lawsuits in specific districts or target certain judges they believe will be favorable. Conversely, advocacy groups from both liberal and conservative backgrounds contend that such injunctions are frequently the only effective and equitable means to challenge unlawful or unconstitutional government actions.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
In an emergency appeal on Thursday, Trump requested that the justices restrict or suspend three nationwide injunctions from lower-court judges blocking his initiative to end birthright citizenship. However, this request may have implications that extend beyond the contentious citizenship issue.
Nationwide injunctions have been used by judges to impede many of Trump’s initiatives, including attempts to abolish “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” programs and cuts to federal medical research.
Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, contended before the Supreme Court that federal district judges lack the authority to issue sweeping orders that halt policies on a national scale. Instead, she proposed that an injunction should be limited to the geographic district of the judge or apply solely to the specific individuals or groups that filed the lawsuit.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” Harris stated, arguing that administrations from both parties have criticized this practice, which has reached “epidemic proportions” during Trump’s current term.
Harris pointed out that lower-court judges issued 15 nationwide blocks against Trump administration actions in February, even though some policies were blocked by multiple judges. This one-month total surpasses the 14 nationwide injunctions that were issued against the federal government in President Joe Biden’s first three years, according to her citation of a law review study.
The injunctions that prompted Trump’s emergency appeal were related to his Day 1 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. This order aims to prevent U.S. citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants or those in the country on short-term visas.
Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state individually blocked the order from being enacted nationwide, asserting that it blatantly contradicts the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
At this stage, Trump is not requesting the Supreme Court to evaluate the executive order’s constitutionality. Instead, he seeks to narrow down two of the injunctions and lift the third entirely—an appeal Harris characterized as “modest.”
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris argued.
The tendency for individual federal judges to issue injunctions that completely halt federal policies has faced extensive and growing criticism in recent times. Many legal scholars have raised concerns about them, and both Democratic and Republican administrations have opposed them. Two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have publicly expressed skepticism regarding their constitutionality.
Critics argue that nationwide injunctions grant too much power to district judges, encouraging administration opponents to file lawsuits in specific districts or target certain judges they believe will be favorable. Conversely, advocacy groups from both liberal and conservative backgrounds contend that such injunctions are frequently the only effective and equitable means to challenge unlawful or unconstitutional government actions.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
