Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Stop Judges

[KenHorse]

https://dailycaller.com/2025/03/13/t...l-injunctions/

Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Stop Judges From Trying To Govern ‘Whole Nation From Their Courtrooms’



The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to rein in lower court rulings that have prevented a ban on birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide.

Judges should not be able to govern “the whole Nation” from their courtrooms by issuing universal injunctions that block policies across the entire country while litigation is pending, the administration told the justices in its application.

“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [temporary restraining orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” the application states. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket.”

The Trump administration is not yet asking the justices to weigh in directly on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship. Instead, they ask the justices to limit the common practice of universal injunctions that “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions, as administrations of both parties have explained.” (RELATED: Justice Alito ‘Stunned’ By Majority’s Failure To Crack Down On ‘Judicial Hubris’ Targeting Trump Admin)


“These cases—which involve challenges to the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship—raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,” wrote. “But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.”

The Trump administration’s requests arise out of orders blocking the ban in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Trump’s executive order prevents children born to parents either illegally in the U.S. or on temporary visas from gaining automatic citizenship.

Several Supreme Court justices have previously expressed disapproval of lower court’s use of nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized what he called “a rash of universal injunctions” during oral arguments in a case on the abortion pill in 2024.

[LATB]

Obama stacked the federal courts with leftist activists judges because they know their commie agenda will not be popular with the voters.

[Aerovette]

I'm still baffled at how this works.

Conservative judge says "Hey stop that" and the Liberals keep on going until made to stop.

Liberal judges say "Hey stop that" and Conservatives freeze in place and wait for higher court ruling.

[Vandelay Industries]

Will Amy Coney Barrett redeem herself here? Not holding my breath.

[Frankie the Fink]

I agree; district judges should concern themselves with rulings in their districts based on black letter law and stop trying to interpret the Constitution.

[donuts]

Trump and his crew needs to proceed and give lower courts the finger just like Biden did.

[KenHorse]

Originally Posted by Frankie the Fink

I agree; district judges should concern themselves with rulings in their districts based on black letter law and stop trying to interpret the Constitution.

They were created by Congress. Congress can reign them in.

[Frankie the Fink]

Originally Posted by KenHorse

They were created by Congress. Congress can reign them in.

They better or every President in the future is subject to EOs and agendas being ruled on or overturned by some twit in a black robe with a biased outlook...

[DJ_Critterus]

I'm probably wrong here, and I'm sure you will all race to correct me, but doesn't a plaintiff have to show actual harm having been done (not probably going to happen) to bring an issue before the courts?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

I'm probably wrong here, and I'm sure you will all race to correct me, but doesn't a plaintiff have to show actual harm having been done (not probably going to happen) to bring an issue before the courts?

Depends. If you're Trump or other R candidates, even showing actual harm doesn't qualify you to bring your case to court.

NO STANDING!!!!!

LATCHES!!!!!!!!

[Onebadcad]

libturds judges are not judges, they are politicians, controlled by those in DC.
These judges do not enforce OUR LAWS, they twist and ignore, they create their own laws without regard to the laws in place.

The once-valid standard that we are a Nation of Laws has been destroyed since 2009, these shitbag judges have ignored OUR LAWS since then.