The Courts’ Power

Yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing was ostensibly about whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship. But the arguments focused on a different issue: Can a single lower-court judge block the president’s policies across the whole country? Despite precedent, the administration says no. It wants to limit the judicial branch’s ability to check the president, even beyond immigration.

This is not a partisan issue. Democratic politicians have also complained that lower courts have too much power. At yesterday’s hearing, the justices didn’t divide along ideological lines. Today’s newsletter walks through the arguments around universal injunctions.

What’s this debate about?

After Trump signed his order ending birthright citizenship, various groups sued to stop his policy. But courts can take years to go through filings, hearings and appeals. In the meantime, Trump could block tens of thousands of newborns from getting citizenship.

Judges often deal with this situation by telling an administration: Don’t enforce your policy until the issue has worked through the courts. And, increasingly, lower courts have applied their pauses to the whole country, not just one jurisdiction. Federal District Court judges in Maryland, Washington state and Massachusetts each stopped Trump’s birthright citizenship ban nationwide.

Presidents from both parties have said this process makes it too easy for random jurists to block their agendas. There are more than 600 District Court judges. With so many options, plaintiffs can almost always find a sympathetic ear.

What’s the fix?

This question doesn’t have an easy answer, and it consumed much of yesterday’s hearing.

The administration said courts should apply injunctions only to the individual who brought the case. So if an undocumented mother sued to stop the birthright citizenship ban, a judge could grant her child — and only her child — citizenship.