Latest news with #judicialpower
Washington Post
4 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
In their budget bill, Republicans show their contempt for courts
To find one of the most dangerous efforts by President Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress to trample the power of judges who stand in their way, you have to dig more than 500 pages into what they have christened, without embarrassment, the One Big Beautiful Bill. Just 57 words long, the egregious language is buried in a section titled 'Restriction on Enforcement.' It says no court 'may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order' unless the party bringing the case has posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in legal actions brought against the government.
New York Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
The Courts' Power
Yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was ostensibly about whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship. But the arguments focused on a different issue: Can a single lower-court judge block the president's policies across the whole country? Despite precedent, the administration says no. It wants to limit the judicial branch's ability to check the president, even beyond immigration. This is not a partisan issue. Democratic politicians have also complained that lower courts have too much power. At yesterday's hearing, the justices didn't divide along ideological lines. Today's newsletter walks through the arguments around universal injunctions. What's this debate about? After Trump signed his order ending birthright citizenship, various groups sued to stop his policy. But courts can take years to go through filings, hearings and appeals. In the meantime, Trump could block tens of thousands of newborns from getting citizenship. Judges often deal with this situation by telling an administration: Don't enforce your policy until the issue has worked through the courts. And, increasingly, lower courts have applied their pauses to the whole country, not just one jurisdiction. Federal District Court judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts each stopped Trump's birthright citizenship ban nationwide. Presidents from both parties have said this process makes it too easy for random jurists to block their agendas. There are more than 600 District Court judges. With so many options, plaintiffs can almost always find a sympathetic ear. What's the fix? This question doesn't have an easy answer, and it consumed much of yesterday's hearing. The administration said courts should apply injunctions only to the individual who brought the case. So if an undocumented mother sued to stop the birthright citizenship ban, a judge could grant her child — and only her child — citizenship. That would place a huge burden on the public and the courts. Potentially millions of people would all have to hire lawyers and file lawsuits to protect their rights. A group could come together in a class-action lawsuit, but forming a class can be a time-consuming, difficult legal process. These individuals could still appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which would retain the power to impose nationwide injunctions. But only losers can appeal a case. What if the plaintiffs never lose in lower courts? (So far, the birthright citizenship plaintiffs haven't.) An administration could choose not to appeal — to avoid setting a precedent it doesn't like and to keep the burden on individuals. The justices could compromise. One suggestion is to limit universal injunctions to specific circumstances, such as when a case involves constitutional questions (as opposed to, say, disputes about how to interpret a regulation). Some lawmakers called for letting only three-judge panels impose universal injunctions. What's next? The Supreme Court will likely rule in a month or two. If the justices decide against Trump, the injunction on his birthright citizenship ban will remain. If the court rules in his favor, it could empower him to carry out his agenda, on immigration and other issues, with fewer obstacles. For more: The Times is tracking this year's major Supreme Court decisions. Officials from Russia and Ukraine are expected to meet today to discuss the possibility of a cease-fire. Anton Troianovski, The Times's Moscow bureau chief, explains the stakes. Trump has not delivered the quick peace in Ukraine that he promised on the campaign trail. But neither has he sold the country out to Russia, as experts feared he might do after several warm chats with and about Vladimir Putin. Today, pushed by Trump, negotiators from Kyiv and Moscow are set to meet in Turkey — in what would be the first time they've faced each other publicly since the spring of 2022. Here's what to know. What's on the table? Ukraine wants a 30-day cease-fire and an exchange of prisoners. Russia wants concessions before it stops fighting. In 2022, the two sides drafted a peace agreement that would bar Ukraine from joining NATO. But Russia wanted more, such as making Russian an official language in Ukraine; Volodymyr Zelensky refused. His negotiating position is weaker now: Trump doesn't see Ukraine's fight as a core American interest, while Russia's military has recovered from the disastrous early weeks of its invasion. How aligned are Trump and Putin? Trump repeats pro-Russian talking points, such as the falsehood that Ukraine started the war. But he hasn't tipped the scales yet. Putin wants Ukraine to cede a large swath of territory it still controls — and to cap the future size of its military. The Trump administration has refused to go along. Still, it remains possible that Trump will cut a deal with Putin over Ukraine's head; he predicted yesterday that 'nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together.' How do Trump and Zelensky stand now? In February, Trump berated Zelensky in front of the press during a meeting in the Oval Office. But the two men seem to have patched things up. They had a drama-free meeting at the funeral of Pope Francis in April. Days later, Ukraine signed a deal giving the United States control over a share of its future mining revenue. At the same time, Trump is losing patience with Putin. The Russian leader has talked to Trump twice on the phone since February and held four hourslong meetings with Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy and close friend. Yet Russia hasn't budged from demands that even Trump aides see as delusional. New Jersey Transit Trump's Middle East Trip More on Politics Israel-Hamas War More International News Other Big Stories Yesterday, the world learned about KJ Muldoon, an infant in Pennsylvania, the first patient to be saved by a new treatment: Doctors edited his DNA to correct a liver disorder. We've heard of gene therapy before — to fight sickle-cell anemia and cancer, for instance. How is this different? I asked Gina Kolata, the science reporter who broke the story. — Adam B. Kushner What's new here? Other treatments don't fix your broken DNA. We deal with sickle-cell anemia by adding good genes, but the mutated ones are still there. Same with hemophilia. We can coach your immune system to attack some cancers' specific DNA. But doctors actually edited KJ's genome to correct bad spelling. Now, his liver can process the ammonia that comes from digesting protein. Eating normal food won't kill him. They injected a lipid that brought the molecular-editing machinery to his liver. Does that mean the gene mutation in each of his liver cells is now fixed? Probably not, though we don't actually know! Doctors didn't want to do an invasive biopsy to find out, but they can tell that he's processing ammonia properly now, and that's good enough. Anyway, you don't have to fix every single cell — only enough to get the job done. Protecting public lands from urban development also protects America's hiking trails, biological diversity and Indigenous inhabitants, Michelle Nijhuis writes. Here are columns by Michelle Goldberg on Joe Biden's competence crisis and David Brooks on the difficulties of college students. Dazzled: People are obsessed with teamLab's immersive art exhibitions. Travel: In the U.S., heightened immigration fears have made planning an international honeymoon unexpectedly complicated. Surprise: Harvard Law School paid $27 for what officials thought was a copy of Magna Carta. Turns out it was an original. Your pick: The Morning's most-clicked link yesterday was about an art auction at Sotheby's that flopped. Trending online yesterday: People were searching for information about extreme weather in Michigan. Lives Lived: Charles Strouse was an accidental Broadway composer but one of the most prolific and honored, with hits like 'Annie' and 'Bye Bye Birdie,' earning him three Tony Awards. He also won a Grammy and an Emmy. He died at 96. W.N.B.A.: An important season begins tonight. Caitlin Clark and other stars are set to break ratings records. N.B.A.: The Nuggets beat the Thunder to force a Game 7 in their second-round series. The internet can be weird and confusing. We asked readers what they wanted to know about strange things online. For each of the next few weeks, The Times's internet culture reporter, Madison Malone Kircher, will answer one question. A reader from New Orleans asked: Is there any way to distinguish between authentic trends and those cooked up by companies or bots? A few years ago, an internet comedian named Sebastian Durfee started making videos to denounce the Porcelain Challenge, a phenomenon in which young people were supposedly grinding up fine china and snorting them like cocaine. Except nobody was actually doing that. Durfee was satirizing the way trends proliferate online with a fake challenge that he said was meant to be 'easily debunked.' Sometimes it isn't that easy. To spot a bogus trend, think about whether it is ridiculous or inflammatory. Then, see if you can locate the source: Has it been covered by a trusted personality or news organization? Can you find the first video ever posted about the trend? (On TikTok, you can click on a particular sound clip and the app will show you the first video to use the audio. This can help, though it's not foolproof.) Does the source appear to be a regular person who just happened to go viral? When a catchy song about a little orange fish became inescapable earlier this spring, you could trace it back to a French duo. Brands participate in memes, but often ones that are falling out of vogue. Nothing sucks the fun out of a shared online experience like a company glomming onto it for profit. The same is true of reporters who explain online trends. I'm not innocent here! More on culture Layer jammy strawberries over this unfussy cake. Spend 36 hours in Rome. Take our news quiz. Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangrams were checkmate and matchmake. And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections, Sports Connections and Strands. Note: Wednesday's Spelling Bee was intended to have three pangrams. Because of a bug, only two, pinhead and pinheaded, made it into the live version. Headpin was omitted. Since a fix would erase players' progress, New York Times Games has opted to leave the puzzle and grid as is. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@
Washington Post
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court grapples with nationwide orders blocking birthright citizenship ban
The Supreme Court appeared divided Thursday about whether to scale back nationwide orders that have blocked President Donald Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, in a case with implications for judicial power and what it means to be an American. After more than two hours of oral argument, it was unclear how the high court would resolve the issue, with liberal justices asserting that Trump's order to deny automatic citizenship for U.S.-born babies is at odds with more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.
The Guardian
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Supreme court to hear birthright citizenship dispute that could expand Trump's power
The US supreme court will hear arguments on Thursday in a dispute that could significantly expand presidential power despite ostensibly focusing on Donald Trump's contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship. The trio of cases before the court stem from the president's January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren't citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States'. But Trump's legal team isn't asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power. Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including US district judge Deborah Boardman, who ruled that 'no court in the country has ever endorsed the president's interpretation.' But the justice department argues these 'nationwide injunctions' unfairly tie the president's hands. 'These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump Administration,' the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued. If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven't blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue. The supreme court's conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the issue a 'question of great significance' requiring the court's attention. Critics warn that limiting judges' power to block policies nationwide would force people to file thousands of individual lawsuits to protect their rights. 'If you literally have to bring separate cases for every single plaintiff, you are limiting the ability of courts to declare what the law is and protect people,' Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser, who joined legal challenges to Trump's order, told NBC News. By the end of March, Trump had faced at least 17 nationwide injunctions since returning to office in January, according to the Congressional Research Service. His first term saw 86 such rulings – far more than other presidents including Joe Biden, who saw 28; Barack Obama who saw 12; and George W Bush who saw six. Trump has also faced at least 328 lawsuits nationwide as of 1 May, with judges blocking his actions more than 200 times, according to a Bloomberg analysis. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The administration has said that universal injunctions 'have reached epidemic proportions since the start of' Trump's second term, and claims they have prevented the executive branch 'from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions'. Several Democratic attorneys general urged the court not to restrict judicial power at a time when 'the government is aggressively issuing executive orders of dubious legality'. Three separate lawsuits have been consolidated into one challenge before the court on Thursday, which came via an emergency appeal in the court's so-called 'shadow docket'. The court's ruling is expected by early July.
Fox News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on birthright citizenship and enforcement of nationwide injunctions
The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship. But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions. That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts. Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally. Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued. Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings. Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks. The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide. But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority. A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis. Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement. While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over power. Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch." And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages. They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications. Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans. Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation. Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We've gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them." The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks. "We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate. "These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'" Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses. The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority. That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling. The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S. Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law." "Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight." Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented. He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "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." Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood." The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery." "If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks. Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children. An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher. But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request." "These injunctions exceed the district courts' authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President's executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria." The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions. "Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications." The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886).
