Supreme Court nationwide injunction ruling: What are Justices Barrett and Jackson's arguements
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a major victory by ruling to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies. However, the issue of whether the administration can limit birthright citizenship still remains unresolved. Trump welcomed the court's 6-3 ruling, declaring that his administration can now proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship. US Supreme Court ruled on nationwide injunction by federal judges on Friday(AFP)
"We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, directed lower courts that blocked Trump's order on birthright citizenship to reconsider. She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had completely different arguments in their opinions.
Jackson and other liberal justices wrote a joint dissent. The Biden-nominee, in her solo dissent, said 'disaster was looming'.
'It gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,' she wrote.
Barrett quickly rebuked her colleague.
'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. 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," Barrett wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, added: "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case."
Trump called the ruling a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law'.
"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 of nationwide injunctions.
(With inputs from Reuters)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its egregious Tax on technology firms
WASHINGTON — 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. 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. Canada and the U.S. have been discussing easing a series of steep tariffs Trump imposed on goods from America's neighbor. 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 he set 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. Addressing reporters after a private meeting with Republican senators Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to comment on news that Trump had ended trade talks with Canada. 'I was in the meeting,' Bessent said before moving on to the next question. About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports as well. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager to obtain. About 80% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. Gillies reported from Toronto. Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Paul Wiseman in Washington contributed to this report. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Print
40 minutes ago
- The Print
Shivraj seconds Hosabale's call for review of insertion of secularism, socialism in Preamble
'Secularism is not the core of our culture. That is why there should indeed be a discussion about it. The word 'secularism' was added during the Emergency—there should be deliberation on removing it,' Chouhan said to a question on whether these terms should be removed from the Preamble. These words, according to the senior BJP leader, were not part of India's civilisational ethos and had been inserted during the 1975 Emergency. New Delhi: After Dattatreya Hosabale of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan joined the bandwagon demanding a rethink on the relevance of the words secularism and socialism in the Constitution. In Varanasi, the Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare also described India as 'an ancient and great nation' founded on the principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhav—equal respect for all faiths. He emphasised that India, as a civilisation, has long upheld religious harmony and mutual respect across traditions. 'This is the India that, not today but thousands of years ago, said 'Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti'—Truth is one, the wise call it by many names,' he said, quoting ancient scripture to underline India's pluralistic tradition. 'This is the India that says 'Munde munde matir bhinna'—every mind is different. It respects differing thoughts and forms of worship.' Citing Swami Vivekananda's historic speech in Chicago, Chouhan added, 'No matter which path you follow, ultimately all lead to the same supreme truth.' A day earlier, Hosabale had forcefully argued for reviewing the inclusion of secularism and socialism in the Constitution. The RSS general secretary said the two terms were inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency—bypassing public debate—and were not part of the Constitution originally drafted by Chouhan also questioned the relevance of socialism in contemporary India, asserting that Indian philosophy already embodies egalitarian values through its ancient teachings. 'Atmavat sarvabhuteshu—to see oneself in all beings—is India's fundamental thought. The entire world is one family—this is India's spirit. Live and let live, let there be goodwill among living beings, let the world be well,' he said. 'Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah—may all be happy, may all be free of illness—this is India's true sentiment. That's why we don't need socialism,' Chouhan said. 'We've been saying it for years—Sia Ram may sab jag jani—see everyone as one and the same. There is no need for imposed socialism.' The nation, the Union Minister said, must seriously reflect on this (removal of secularism and socialism from the Constitution. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 'Mask comes off' as RSS wants 'Manusmriti', says Rahul on call to drop 'secular' from Constitution
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Uttarakhand HC clears path for panchayat polls
New Delhi The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday vacated its interim stay on the upcoming panchayat elections, allowing the electoral process to move forward while directing the State government to respond to allegations regarding irregularities in the reservation roster. A Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahara passed the order while hearing multiple petitions challenging the reservation allocations for the rural body elections. The stay, originally issued on June 23, just two days after the State had announced the election schedule, had stalled polls that were set to take place on July 10 and 15, with results scheduled for July 19. Over a dozen petitions were filed by residents from various districts, raising concerns about repeated allocation of seats to the same social groups over successive terms. The petitioners alleged that such practices violate Article 243 of the Constitution and go against various Supreme Court judgments. They contended that seats for block pramukh and district panchayat president were not being rotated fairly among different categories. In response, the state government informed the court that it had revised the previous reservation roster following observations made by the National Commission for Backward Classes, necessitating a new list for the current elections. After examining submissions from both sides, the court noted that while there were some instances of repetition in reserved seats, the number was negligible when compared to the total number of seats. It also observed that new panchayats had been created following delimitation, contributing to the apparent irregularities. 'Petitioners have raised various contentions, including the validity of Rule 4(4), and argued that even general category seats reserved for women should fall within the 50% reservation ceiling. Prima facie, this argument does not appeal to the Bench,' the court noted in its order. The court has directed the State Election Commission to release a revised election schedule, extending the previously announced dates by four days. It also ordered the state government to file its response to the allegations within three weeks. The matter will next be heard on July 28.
