To me, it is clear that the 14th Amendment establishes birthright citizenship. In 1898 in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment did so. So, when Trump tried to abolish birthright citizenship by executive order, I was glad his action was stopped by a federal judge.
The above being said, however, I nevertheless, am pleased with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor. The Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges have no inherent authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The case before the Court was Trump v. CASA, Inc.
In January President Trump issued an Executive Order that denied birthright citizenship to people born in the United States if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States and if their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Advocacy groups files suits with various federal district courts and several courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing the government from enforcing the Executive Order anywhere in the country during litigation.
While I am pleased the Courts ruled the way I wanted them to rule in that case, I do not believe a single Federal District judge should have the authority to make a ruling that effects the whole nation. With 94 federal district courts, plaintiffs can judge shop and find a judge who will rule in their favor. With 94 different federal courts there are some ultra-liberal courts and some ultra-conservative courts.
It is not just Trump critics who have judge shopped and stopped executive action nationwide. Late in Biden's term he attempted to "forgive" student loans. The Supreme Court had already ruled that an earlier attempt to forgive student loans was illegal. Biden tried to achieve the same thing through other means and a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division issued a temporary restraining order against the Education Department from implementing a student loan debt relief plan. I am pleased with that outcome but do not think that is the way policy should be made. A federal judge in southern rural Georgia should not make policy for the whole nation.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, some pro-life doctors brought a suite in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and got a nationwide injunction against the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. I am okay with that policy outcome, but it should have been an issued debated and decided by the legislative branch, not the decision of one judge in Texas.
Sometimes it is hard to separate one's pleasure with the outcome of an event and concern about how the event was achieved. It is easy to have the mindset that the ends justify the means. One may, as an example, approve of increased deportations, and stifle concerned about the violation of due process. Generally, I am as concerned, maybe more concerned, with the process than I am the outcome. We have all heard the saying, "what goes around, comes around." I don't buy that as a metaphysical maxim but in politics however, if one side bends a rule or uses an illegal tactic to get what it wants, then rest assured when political fortunes are reversed, the other side will do it. If we stretch the structure of our democracy too often and too much, it may not hold.
Also, I don't think Donald Trump nor any other strong president, is not the only threat to a functioning democracy and our liberties. An unchecked electorate responding to the passion of the moment can run roughshod over minority interest and individual liberties. So can the legislative or the judicial branch. Just as we should be concerned with an imperial presidency, we should be concerned with an imperial judiciary. Separation of power, balance of power, and the constitutional framework makes our republic function. We should safeguard those arrangements and reject overreach even when we like the particular outcome.
As regards the Trump v. CASA, Inc decision, the court did not address the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. We can expect that issue to be litigated at a later time. For those who think this ruling by the court leaves Trump unchecked, plaintiffs still have the tool of class action lawsuits. Also, the CASA ruling leaves room for judges to order relief akin to a nationwide injunction when a state sues the federal government. Also, I suspect that if the Courts were less activist, the legislature would reclaim some of the authority that should be theirs. Many of the decisions decided by Courts should rightly be decided by the legislative branch instead of decided by one unelected judge. I suspect many elected representatives are cowardly because they are counting on the courts to do the job they should do.
For more on this topic, see the following:
- A Welcome Start on Nationwide Injunctions | National Review
- Harvard Law Review: District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions
- The Federalist Society: Proposed Legislative Limits on Nationwide Injunctions
- Politico: Supreme Court leaves open the question of nationwide injunctions when states sue
- Supreme Court: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc. (06/27/2025)
- The White House: “A BIG WIN”: Supreme Court Ends Excessive Nationwide Injunctions
Top Stories
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment