&w=3840&q=100)
Supreme Court hands Trump major win by curbing nationwide Injunctions
In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.' read more
A US Supreme Court police officer stands watch as anti-abortion protesters rally outside of the Supreme Court, on Thursday in Washington. AP
The US Supreme Court on Friday backed President Donald Trump in his bid to limit the reach of lower court rulings that have repeatedly stalled key parts of his policy agenda.
In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges 'likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.'
The top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
These broad court orders have been central to the president's ongoing clashes with the judiciary over his efforts to reshape immigration policy, cut government spending, and assert greater control over independent agencies.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants.
The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits.
Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
The ruling could have lasting consequences — not just for the remainder of Trump's presidency, but for future administrations across both political parties, reported CNN.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's final appointee to the Supreme Court, authored the sweeping majority opinion.
'(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' CNN quoted Barrett as writing for the majority.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' Barrett added.
Meanwhile, US Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to the court's ruling backing President Trump's effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months.
'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer,' Bondi wrote on X.
'This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.'
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
10 minutes ago
- India Today
Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions in win for Trump's immigration agenda
A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this courts, Barrett wrote, '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.'The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make was not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges may still be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of a 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American U.S. is amongst about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are amongst and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's have uniformly ruled against the Justice Department has argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
10 minutes ago
- India Today
We can do whatever we want: Trump says deadline for reciprocal tariffs not fixed
US President Donald Trump said that the July 9 deadline for reimposing broad tariffs on imports may not be set in stone. Speaking at the White House, Trump said the date could be moved forward or backward, depending on how trade talks progress.'We have full flexibility. We can shorten the timeline, or extend it. Personally, I'd prefer to move quickly,' Trump said. 'I'd love to just notify everyone: Congratulations, you're now paying 25 per cent.'advertisementTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent signalled the possibility of an extended timeline, suggesting that agreements might still be reached by Labor Day. After a week dominated by the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and intense debate over a major tax and spending package in Congress, the Trump administration has ramped up its trade efforts. On Thursday, the US submitted a fresh proposal to the European Union, while India dispatched a delegation to Washington to continue trade discussions.'We're seeing strong interest from countries offering solid deals,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business Network.'We've got 18 key trading partners. If we can finalize agreements with 10 or 12 of them, and we're already engaging with another 20 significant economies, we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day,' Bessent on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the administration is open to shifting the July 8–9 tariff deadlines, calling them 'not critical.' She emphasised that President Trump retains the authority to move those dates as he sees fit."If countries don't come to the table, the president has the option to simply present them with a deal," Leavitt said, noting that this could involve setting reciprocal tariffs deemed favourable to US interests and responded positively to Leavitt's comments, with stocks climbing to session highs amid optimism that a more flexible approach could avert trade April, the president introduced a system of reciprocal tariffs on nearly all foreign imports. However, a 90-day grace period, expiring July 8, was granted on any tariffs exceeding 10 per cent, providing countries time to late May, Trump escalated his stance, threatening tariffs of up to 50 per cent on goods from the European Union, which had already been hit by the earlier round of tariffs.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersTune InMust Watch
India Today
10 minutes ago
- India Today
Are U.S. Presidents selling war for profit?
Behind the pomp of presidential summits and NATO handshakes lies an uncomfortable truth—America's foreign policy isn't driven by diplomacy, but by the defence lobby's bottom line. From Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to Trump's brash missile marketing, every US president has doubled as the world's most powerful arms dealer. The numbers don't lie. Defence giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon pump over 80 million annually into lobbying, with nearly 280 million flowing to political campaigns since 1990. This isn't charity—it's investment in influence. Every dollar spent returns tenfold in government contracts and overseas sales NATO's latest pledge makes this crystal clear. By 2035, member states must spend 5% of GDP on "defence"—a windfall wrapped in security rhetoric. Buried in the fine print: 3.5% goes directly to military kit, much of it stamped "Made in USA." European taxpayers will fund American factories whilst their own public services face the revolving door spins faster than a Chinook's rotors. Pentagon officials become corporate executives, senators join defence boards, and generals turn consultant. This ensures continuity regardless of election results—the real winners remain never bothered with subtlety, openly flogging Patriot missiles at NATO summits like a market trader hawking knockoff watches. Biden played the statesman whilst quietly expediting record arms transfers to Ukraine. Obama collected his peace prize then approved 135 billion in weapons sales. Different styles, identical tragedy became America's opportunity. Every HIMARS rocket fired was a billboard for US firepower. Every Patriot battery deployed was a sales demonstration. Zelensky's desperate pleas for seven more systems weren't just about survival—they were free advertising for American defence human cost is staggering, but so is the opportunity cost. Half of America's discretionary budget feeds the military machine whilst schools crumble and hospitals close. NATO's spending spree threatens similar austerity across isn't foreign policy—it's product placement with geopolitical consequences. When the next crisis erupts, remember: someone dies, but someone else gets rich. In America's war economy, that's not a bug—it's the entire bloody point.- Ends
