The Supreme Court delivered a major decision on Friday, declaring that federal judges in lower courts likely go beyond their constitutional limits when they issue injunctions that apply across the entire country. The ruling was seen as a significant victory for the Trump administration and marked one of the most anticipated decisions of the term.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court’s conservative majority, stated, “[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” She added, “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The dispute stemmed from the Trump administration’s legal fight against several broad injunctions that blocked the president’s executive order—issued on his first day in office—to rescind birthright citizenship. The justices did not weigh in on the validity of the policy itself in their ruling.
Barrett clarified the court’s position by writing, “The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted,” adding, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Federal judges in lower courts have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions that halt executive actions entirely, rather than limiting relief to the individuals or groups who brought the case. This case challenged that trend head-on.
There has been bipartisan concern over the years about the scope of lower courts’ powers. However, during the hearings, the justices appeared divided on how or whether to set firm boundaries on that authority. Barrett emphasized that such broad injunctions have no foundation in judicial tradition and were not contemplated under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a sharp dissent to the majority’s opinion. But it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s separate dissent that triggered a pointed response from Barrett. “We observe only this,” Barrett wrote. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
{Matzav.com}