Concerned about the power of federal judges to block presidential actions, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rein in their lower-court colleagues. President Trump’s attempt to narrow birthright citizenship by executive order seemed to concern several justices, but it didn’t occupy the center of attention during two hours of arguments today.
The justices mostly pushed lawyers for the federal government, 18 states and two cities, and a collection of private individuals and non-profit organizations to unpack the power that federal trial court judges have to block presidential conduct. Multiple justices noted that they assume federal judges act in good faith as they attempt to interpret the law. Despite those efforts, judges will sometimes make a mistake, concluding that a presidential directive is illegal only to learn, upon appeal to a higher court, that it’s not.
The issue that occupied most of the time today was whether the Supreme Court should limit when their colleagues can block presidential conduct through a nationwide injunction. Justices across the ideological divide expressed frustration with how district courts have issued nationwide injunctions in recent years, suggesting that the Court is likely to provide some set of standards for lower courts to apply.
The attorney representing private individuals and organizations, Kelsi Corkran, suggested that the Supreme Court instruct lower courts that they can do so only when the federal government is attempting to implement a policy with national reach on a matter of utmost importance. Birthright citizenship would certainly fit that description.
The justices asked lawyers representing the parties whether the Court should also address the constitutionality of President Trump’s citizenship executive order. Corkran and U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who represented the federal government today, both said that the justices could do so, but neither offered more than a barebones explanation supporting their side’s position. Notably, the justices did not press the lawyers to jump more deeply into the legal issues on citizenship, reflecting either their disinterest in weighing in on the matter or their view that birthright citizenship is so clear that it requires no explanation.
The Supreme Court usually issues all its opinions by the end of June or beginning of July meaning that it is likely to be a few weeks before we hear anything more on birthright citizenship from the courts.
Share this post