Sotomayor joined by Jackson, Kagan on fiery birthright citizenship dissent
The Supreme Court's three liberal justices issued fiery dissents on Friday in response to the conservative majority's decision to let President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order go into effect in some parts of the country.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson that the decision, which cuts back judges' ability to issue injunctions blocking the president's policies nationwide, that the majority played into Trump's hand.
She noted that the government has not asked for complete stays of the injunctions because, to get such relief, it would have to prove that Trump's order narrowing birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil who don't have at least one parent with permanent legal status is likely constitutional.
'So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game,' she said, pointing to the Trump administration's bid to tear down nationwide injunctions.
'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,' she said. 'Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.'
Sotomayor argued that the rule of law is 'not a given,' and the high court 'abdicates its vital role' in fighting for its survival in America today.
'With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.'
She read her dissent from the bench, the second time this term she has done so.
In a separate, solo dissent, Jackson went a step further. She called the court's 6-3 decision along ideological lines an 'existential threat to the rule of law.'
'It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'When the Government says 'do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,' what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation.'
Jackson suggested that the Constitution was designed to 'split the powers of a monarch' between three governing branches to protect the American people from overreach. She said those core values are 'strangely absent' from the majority ruling.
'With deep disillusionment, I dissent,' she wrote.
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett forcefully pushed back against Jackson's suggestion that the court shirked on its duty to protect the people from government overreach.
She said she would 'not dwell' on Jackson's argument, claiming it is at odds with 'more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.'
'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Trump said in his post. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation.' Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm with Trump. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report
University of Virginia's president has resigned amid a Department of Justice probe into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, according to reports from the New York Times. Ryan's resignation will be effective 'no later than August 15,' a person familiar with the matter told the Times. University board members had alleged the school was not in compliance with President Trump's January executive order barring DEI practices at institutions that receive federal funding. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote a letter to Ryan on April 28 saying the office had received complaints the university's administration had failed to follow Trump's directive. The Times reported that the DOJ wrote another letter on June 17 saying, 'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin.' The school and Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. Axios reported earlier on Friday that the Trump administration was trying to push out Ryan. A university spokesperson told the outlet, 'UVA is committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries. The federal government's support of the University is essential to continue the core mission of research, education and clinical care.' Ryan previously served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education prior to joining the University of Virginia in August 2018. Virginia's Democratic senators blasted the Trump administration following news of his departure. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward — over ridiculous 'culture war' traps,' Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a statement. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' The Trump administration has picked fights with various high-profile universities over diversity programs and their alleged failure to tackle anti-semitism on campus. Columbia University caved to those demands in an attempt to maintain federal funding, while Harvard has so far stood its ground. The Times reported this week that Harvard's leaders are debating how to reach a deal without being seen as capitulating to Trump.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.
