The Supreme Court has struck down the validity of universal injunctions, ruling 6-3 Friday that a district court judge’s decision that curtailing birthright citizenship was unconstitutional could stand, but could only be applied to the parties in that case.
A universal or nationwide injunction is a court order that stops the federal government from enforcing a law or policy not just against the specific parties in the case, but against everyone affected by the law or policy nationwide.
The majority opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and was joined by the five other conservative justices on the court. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
@northeasternglobalnews The Supreme Court has ruled to limit national injunctions, allowing President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country. The order will not go into effect for 30 days, which allows its legality to be contested further. Constitutional law expert Dan Urman explains what this decision means. #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #US #Politics #Law #UniversalInjunctions ♬ original sound – NGN
The Supreme Court has ruled to limit national injunctions, allowing President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country. The order will not go into effect for 30 days, which allows its legality to be contested further. Constitutional law expert Dan Urman explains what this decision means. #SupremeCourt #BirthrightCitizenship #US #Politics #Law #UniversalInjunctions
Northeastern University constitutional law expert Dan Urman called the ruling “quite surprising — especially given the underlying facts in the case.”
“The court is allowing the executive branch to implement unlawful orders against people who are not part of a lawsuit challenging the orders — this means that people who are not part of a lawsuit lack relief until the Supreme Court strikes down the orders or an administration changes hands and changes the policy,” says Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court. “Now, the rule is that only parties in a lawsuit are protected by a court’s ruling to initially block a government action.
The Supreme Court in May heard arguments on three cases challenging a Jan. 20 executive order that essentially rewrites the 14th Amendment provision pertaining to birthright citizenship by excluding those born to mothers who were “unlawfully present” or “lawful but temporary.”
The three cases ostensibly challenged the administration’s attempt to curtail birthright citizenship. But the Supreme Court justices and government attorneys focused during oral arguments on the procedural issues in the case — whether district court judges’ rulings that the order violated the Constitution applied to just the parties in the cases or nationwide — rather than the underlying constitutional question in the case.
“It happens to involve a lawsuit challenging birthright citizenship,” Urman says. “But the court was looking for a way to rule on whether or when it is appropriate for district court judges to issue universal injunctions.”
Urman explained that the government basically argued that when a district court or trial-level judge strikes down something the federal government does as unlawful in all circumstances, the judge exceeds his or her authority.
“The majority thinks of it as judicial overreach,” Urman says. “It’s a power grab. It’s the government being hampered by out-of-control federal judges who should only issue judgments for the parties before them.”
“On the other hand, the dissents see the ruling as a judicial abdication of duty,” Urman continues. “Sotomayor and Jackson’s dissents expressed concerns about the erosion of the rule of law, and the incentives for executives to flagrantly violate it going forward.”
Indeed, Coney Barrett wrote in her majority opinion that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.
“When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Coney Barrett wrote.
Sign up for NGN’s daily newsletter for news, discovery and analysis from around the world.
But Urman says the logical response is, “If they’re challenging a national and clearly unconstitutional law, shouldn’t a ruling on it apply nationally?”
Furthermore, he notes, is the government really demanding that every single citizen file a lawsuit if they believe a policy to be unlawful?
“A lot of this is about if courts find a policy violates the Constitution, is the best way to deal with it universally or case by case, lawsuit by lawsuit?” Urman says.
The court has ruled in the latter.
Urman noted that this ostensibly enables the executive branch to issue blatantly unconstitutional orders, however, and have them go into effect until every citizen lawyers up.
“What if the president issued an executive order saying women can’t vote or Black people can’t sit on juries?,” Urman asks. “Would the order still apply to anyone who was not part of a lawsuit challenging it?”
The liberal justices raise similar implications in their dissents, which Urman calls “forceful, passionate and expressing sincere concern for democracy and the rule of law.”
“Customarily, justices say they ‘dissent respectfully,’” Urman says. “Here, neither dissent used that term. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent (joined by Kagan and Jackson) said, ‘because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.’ Justice Jackson said, ‘with deep disillusionment, I dissent.’”
Sotomayor also called the decision “a travesty for the rule of law.”
Urman notes, however, that the majority opinion permits states to be parties to a lawsuit and class-action lawsuits.
“This could limit the damage of the opinion, but (Justice Samuel) Alito’s concurrence warns about these tools serving as replacements for universal injunctions,” Urman notes. “It means we will soon see the practical consequences of the ruling play out in the lower courts.”
“This issue will continue as some district court judges will be quite willing to permit third-party standing and class actions to challenge government actions, including executive orders,” Urman continues.
Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship issue remains unresolved. The opinion said that President Donald Trump’s order does not go into effect for 30 days, which means lawyers can file new class-action lawsuits.
“The question is one that the court doesn’t seem to want to resolve this term,” says Urman, “But I would never put it past them to resolve the issue in a future term.”
“The issue is not going to go away,” Urman says.