Supreme Court hands Trump ‘Giant Win' in birthright citizenship case
In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court wrote, 'Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.'
In Friday's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett claimed that the 'universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent' for the majority of U.S. history.
'Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority,' Barrett wrote. 'That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible.'
Barrett explained that the Supreme Court's ruling does not address whether the president's executive order on birthright citizenship violates the Nationality Act of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, Barrett said the issue presented to the Supreme Court 'is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.'
READ MORE: Supreme Court issues major deportation ruling
Barrett added, 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.'
In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the court's decision will now require district courts throughout the country to 'follow proper legal procedures' with regard to injunctions.
'Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized,' Kavanaugh stated.
Following Friday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social, saying, 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.'
Vice President J.D. Vance also released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, describing it as a 'huge ruling.' Vance claimed that the ruling will stop the 'ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions' that Democrat judges have used to continually block the president's executive orders.
'Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges!' Vance tweeted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
11 minutes ago
- Politico
A GOP divide is growing over Trump's redistricting play
These strange divisions underscore the complex political dynamics of the president's latest power play. It's become a loyalty test that could boost Republicans' chances of keeping their trifecta in Washington, but one that also carries significant electoral risk for several of their own members in Congress and potential for broader voter backlash. Trump's team is barreling forward, bullish about having more opportunities to redraw maps across the states than Democrats and brushing off concerns as primarily coming from members whose seats are at risk. Administration officials and allies are working to fire up his base by noting that Democrats have already gerrymandered several states in their favor and have limited moves left to play. And MAGA online influencers like Steven Bannon and Charlie Kirk are encouraging their fans to jam Greg Abbott's phone lines so the Texas governor ratchets up pressure on quorum-breaking Democrats to return and let Republicans pass a new congressional map. But even that is showing some limits. 'Redistricting is not really an ideological exercise as much as a self-interest exercise,' California-based GOP strategist Rob Stutzman said. 'The safer you are and enjoy being in the majority, the more your self interest is 'lets see Texas get scrambled and if we sacrifice some colleagues from blue states, in California and New York, so be it.'' But for those more vulnerable Republicans, 'this poses a substantial risk to your career,' Stutzman said. And that's why some are reflecting at least a 'growing private sentiment of 'is this really worth it?'' A person familiar with the White House's thinking on redistricting and granted anonymity to describe it said 'we expect to have great success everywhere' if California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic governors attempt to retaliate. 'All of these members, they should just remain calm because they'll still be members,' the person said of the Republican lawmakers airing concerns. In Congress, House GOP leaders are trying to bridge the divide between the White House's 'maximum pressure' campaign to pad their majority, and the swath of GOP members who fear the gambit may backfire. Senior House Republicans have advised some rank and file GOP members to keep their concerns to private conversations, and not air criticisms in public.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Pushes to Extend Federal Control of Washington Police, Eyes Broader Powers
U.S. President Donald Trump says he'll ask Congress to extend federal control over Washington D.C.'s police force beyond the 30 days allowed under current law — and he believes the move could serve as a model for other cities.
USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
It's not just DC: Republicans seem happy to let Trump do whatever he wants
For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about President Trump's invasion of an American city. I'm starting to wonder when our government's checks and balances will kick in – or if they will at all. On Monday, Aug. 11, President Donald Trump announced he would be deploying the National Guard in Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police force "to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The troops began showing up on Tuesday evening. According to Trump, violent crime is up in the nation's capital, and he's the only one who can rescue the city from societal collapse. It's a convenient narrative, one that feeds into MAGA's perception of him. For the rest of us, it's a terrifying move that shows he is willing to test the limits of presidential oversight. But while Trump's hostile takeover of DC public safety is concerning on its own, it's more alarming that Republicans in Congress are letting him do this with seemingly no regard for what is ethical. Even if this deployment is legal, there are certain lines that presidents should not cross. This is one of them. And I have to ask. Would Republicans be sitting on their hands if a Democratic president were doing everything that Trump is doing? I would hope not, but here we are. Of course, Trump is lying about crime in DC Trump seems to have called in the military after an assault on a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer on Aug. 3. While it's horrible that a government employee was attacked, Trump's declaration that Washington is crime-infested and dangerous doesn't align with reality. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime is down 26% compared with last year. In fact, 2024 marked a 30-year low for violent crime in Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Per a New York Times analysis, the homicide rate in 2023 was 40.4 per 100,000 people, the highest rate in 20 years. But that rate declined in 2024, down to 26.6 per 100,000 people. And homicides in the city continue to decline in 2025. While Trump is correct in saying this rate is higher than those of Mexico City and Bogotá, Colombia, it doesn't paint the full picture. A federal takeover is an extreme reaction. It doesn't matter, of course, that violent crime in the city is down overall this year. That wouldn't fit in with the Trumpian narrative, the one where he's the hero saving tourists and locals alike from violent crime. Are you worried about crime? Do you feel safe where you live? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Who even asked for this? It wasn't DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. All of this is happening to the dismay of Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser, who noted on the Aug. 12 edition of 'The Breakfast Club' that the militarization of the city will instill fear in its residents. '(Trump) wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way,' Bowser said on the radio show. Bowser is right, this is an escalation. It's Trump's way of showing everyone in Democratic parts of the country that he has the final say and that he isn't afraid to use the military to his advantage. Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run. | Opinion Will Republicans hold Trump accountable for anything? For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about Trump's invasion of an American city. In fact, it seems that many are supportive of the move. If a Democratic president were to try to do this, the Republican Party would decry authoritarianism's arrival in the United States. But because it's Trump, there has been zero pushback. Just like his tariff plan that's costing everyday Americans, the failed Elon Musk overhaul of the federal government, the deployment of soldiers against citizens in Los Angeles and his ruthless immigration agenda that includes trying to erase due process, the GOP is letting him get away with all of it. Republicans may even be happy about it. Imagine if Joe Biden did any of that? The Republican pearl-clutching would be generational. But this is fine because it's their king. Trump is considering extending the troop deployment beyond 30 days, something he will need congressional approval for. This seems entirely plausible, even likely, because of the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. I'm hesitant to throw the F-word – fascism – around, but if the Trump administration continues down this path, I worry that the rights we have as Americans will slip away. Who's stopping the president from deploying troops to other cities in the United States? It certainly isn't going to be Congress. There's some hope for the Supreme Court, but it has a 6-3 conservative majority. All of this is happening within the first year of Trump's return to the White House. There's no telling what the next three years will bring if this is how he's starting out. There should be firm lines that presidents do not cross – there are some things that are not appropriate or reasonable for a president to do. Yet that line keeps getting moved by Republicans, who don't seem to care as long as their conservative agenda is being implemented. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
