The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit the extent of lower court injunctions issued to protect birthright citizenship and other constitutional rights.
The June 27 decision in President of the United States v. CASA bars district court judges from issuing “universal injunctions” in cases challenging President Donald Trump’s January executive order denying citizenship to the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents, even though that right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment.
Trump’s order mandates children born the in the U.S. must have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or has permanent legal residence in the country.
Judges in three separate cases barred implementation of the order nationwide instead of for the plaintiffs alone. The administration challenged the injunctions as limits on executive power.
Amy Coney Barrett
Federal courts “do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The opinion leaves open the likelihood of further class-action litigation and lawsuits seeking to define how narrowly such injunctions can be interpreted.
“The government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” Barrett wrote.
But in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued the lower courts should not be hindered in protecting the rights all of those potentially affected by “such plainly unlawful policies” such as Trump’s order on birthright citizenship.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Trump’s executive order circumvents the 14th Amendment by denying the automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to noncitizens in the country temporarily or illegally. But the question of constitutionality was not addressed in the court’s decision, Sotomayor noted.
“The majority ignores entirely whether the president’s executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,” she said. “Yet the order’s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case. As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.”
Immediately following the Supreme Court ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit designed to circumvent the limits imposed in President of the United States v. CASA.
“Three other lawsuits originally obtained nationwide injunctions protecting everyone subject to the order, but the Supreme Court’s decision narrowed those injunctions, potentially leaving some children without protection,” the ACLU explained. “This new case seeks protection for all families in the country, filling the gaps that may be left by the existing litigation.”
So far, every court that reviewed challenges to Trump’s executive order has deemed it cruel and unconstitutional, said Cody Wofsy, lead ACLU attorney in the new class-action suit. “The Supreme Court’s decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”
Trump described the ruling as “amazing” during a White House press conference.
Skye Perryman
“This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,” he said. “It’s striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.”
In a certain sense, the ruling’s bark is worse than its bite, said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward.
“This feels big and it is devastating and disappointing, but despite the president’s boasting, the ruling will not change our ability to go to court and secure orders to protect the rights of people, at least right now,” she said. “In fact, we are inspired by partners who have already filed a class action in the birthright matter to protect people.”
“We will continue to use all legal tools to defend the rights of people and our nation’s Constitution. Lawyers in this nation will find a way or make one in the work to achieve what our Constitution mandates and our country’s promises,” Perryman said.
Related articles:
Here’s this week’s roundup of Trump’s campaign against immigrants
Here’s a rundown of Trump’s ‘day one’ immigration actions
Trump’s actions face 96 court challenges; here’s where to track them