The Supreme Court declared that federal courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against unconstitutional presidential actions. This decision, arising from the case Trump v. CASA regarding an executive order on birthright citizenship, directly contradicts established legal precedents. The court emphasized that federal courts may only provide relief to specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit. This ruling halts a growing practice of granting universal injunctions and restricts oversight on executive power, particularly in relation to President Trump's expansive assertions of authority.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to halt unconstitutional actions by the president. This decision complicates restraining presidential overreach.
The ruling in Trump v. CASA challenges established legal principles regarding birthright citizenship, asserting that only children born to citizens or green card holders qualify.
The majority decision, led by Justice Barrett, argues that universal injunctions likely surpass the equitable powers given to courts by Congress.
Justice Thomas described the ruling as a definitive end to the trend of federal courts issuing universal injunctions, emphasizing limited relief to plaintiffs.
Collection
[
|
...
]