Door still open for nationwide injunctions, a legal scholar says

The ruling has struck a blow to the power lower courts will have to check executive overreach. But exactly what will happen next remains to be seen.

The court found that injunctions must be limited to the plaintiffs who sue the government - they cannot be broadly applied nationwide, as has been the case.

Margo Schlanger, who teaches at University of Michigan Law School and is the director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, says that while the court has made it "much harder" for people to fight presidential orders, it has left a door open for states to sue on behalf of citizens nationwide.

Over 20 states filed suit against the president's order to limit birthright citizenship. Now, lower courts have 30 days to review their nationwide injunctions and decide if or how they should be narrowed in order to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

These states could still decide that a nationwide injunction is appropriate, she said, giving the example of an argument suggesting one was necessary because a person with citizenship in New Jersey could lose that protection if they cross the border into New York.

“It narrowed the path for an injunction, but it didn’t cut it off completely," Ms Schlanger said.

Crucially, at least for now, children born in the US are still citizens, she added.

Great...

Lawmakers react to court's decision

published at 14:46

The leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have sharply criticised the Supreme Court's decision to curb judges' power to block President Donald Trump's orders nationwide.

US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the court"recklessly limited the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. However, the judicial fight to protect birthright citizenship is alive and well. Every child born in the United States is an American citizen. We will not rest until that constitutional right is completely and unequivocally protected."

US Senate's Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the ruling as "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy".

"By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution—it’s defacing it," he added.

Republican leaders have welcomed of the decision.

"The Supreme Court made it clear that these rogue politically-motivated judges have exceeded their authority, and this overtly political practice must end," House Speaker Mike Johnson said.

Vice President JD Vance said "A huge rulling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law -including judges!

Step towards authoritarianism? So Chuck, when do you think we'll actually arrive at authoritarianism, exactly? Not there yet according to you?