On June 27, while addressing Trump’s January executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges lack authority to impose nationwide injunctions, a tool that has historically been used to prevent controlling parties, both Democrat and Republican alike, from enacting key agenda goals.
This ruling deliberately gives the Executive and the ruling party in congress exceptional power to enact their agenda and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent towards authoritarian control by this administration.
What is a Nationwide Injunction?
Put simply, an injunction is an order or demand by a judge. When applied Nationwide, it is often used to set back agenda goals by either party. For example, Biden era policies attempting to enact student loan forgiveness were stopped by judges in red states imposing nationwide injunctions. Likewise, Trump’s agenda is often stopped by judges in blue states via the same methods.
What are the Greater Implications?
The new court ruling now prohibits federal judges from imposing nationwide injunctions, meaning federal judges will now be unable to stop unconstitutional actions at the national level. Federal judges may still impose statewide injunctions but it would cause a legal mess between the states, leaving certain actions or policies legal in some states, and illegal in others.
The consequences reach far beyond the issue of birthright citizenship, opening the door for the Trump administration to push through the republican agenda leaving few with the power to push back against the administration. While a California judge may be able to prevent the administration from carrying out it’s agenda in California, they will be completely powerless to stop it at a national scale.
As for this legal Balkanization, it would create a huge mess concerning policies like birthright citizenship. If for example, the Trump administration were successful in repealing birthright citizenship, a California judge may be able to impose an injunction preventing the enactment of the policy while other states like Texas remain complicit. This would leave gaping legal questions about whether certain individuals would be citizens in California but not Texas, and likewise with every other state that either chooses to impose an injunction or remain complicit. This type of fragmentation would exist for any other federal policy pushed by either the Executive or Legislative branches.
What we are left with is an administration that is now free to push through it’s agenda nationally, only being stopped in individual states with judges willing to impose statewide injunctions. Keeping in mind the greater objectives of this administration and their desire to proceed with mass deportations, while children born to migrant parents in California may receive greater protections compared to those born in states complicit with this administration, this type of fragmentation leaves behind migrant communities in other states who will lack any legal protections to keep them safe.
Zinnia 