🚨 SCOTUS just heard arguments on President Trump's birthright citizenship order.
This case is big. It isn't just about birthright citizenship—it's about the limits of how rogue judges can use nationwide injunctions.
My prediction: Trump could be on the cusp of a big win. 🧵
This case is big. It isn't just about birthright citizenship—it's about the limits of how rogue judges can use nationwide injunctions.
My prediction: Trump could be on the cusp of a big win. 🧵
Solicitor General John Sauer (who was my Solicitor General back in my AG days) argued for President Trump. Right out of the gate, multiple liberal justices were swinging for his head, but they could never land the critical blow on Teflon John.
https://x.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1923066348449517965
While birthright citizenship is the subject matter of the "merits," SCOTUS is more likely to address a critical procedural question and dodge the merits.
That question: Can courts issue nationwide injunctions or must courts address questions of group relief in class actions?
That question: Can courts issue nationwide injunctions or must courts address questions of group relief in class actions?
SG Sauer, rightly, pointed out that the "nationwide injunction" was a mid-20th century invention by the courts.
It wasn't until 1963 in Wirtz v. Baldor Electric Co. that the first clear-cut nationwide injunction was issued.
It wasn't until 1963 in Wirtz v. Baldor Electric Co. that the first clear-cut nationwide injunction was issued.
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1923059957538193783
The problem with nationwide injunctions is that they exceed the power Article III.
Article III's "Cases" and "Controversies" reqmt. only gives courts the power to address the injury of the complaining party, not hypothetical parties.
Article III's "Cases" and "Controversies" reqmt. only gives courts the power to address the injury of the complaining party, not hypothetical parties.
https://x.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/1923021411800461315
Beyond its unconstitutionality, the nationwide injunction has, in practice, been a tool to "get Trump."
In the 60 years they have existed, two-thirds of all nationwide injunctions issued by courts have been issued against the Trump Administration.
In the 60 years they have existed, two-thirds of all nationwide injunctions issued by courts have been issued against the Trump Administration.
https://x.com/JaySekulow/status/1921280958235389991
And as Trump stays in office, that ratio is set to rise. He is currently on pace to amass over 400(!) nationwide injunctions issued against his administration in his second term.
https://x.com/ChadMizelle47/status/1923030793741361339
With nationwide injunctions gone, people could still get sweeping relief through our class action process, which is laid out in great detail by acts of Congress and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while nationwide injunctions are found in neither.
The vote splits on this one are far from certain; however, there was a healthy amount of skepticism of nationwide injunctions and discussion of alternatives from some conservative justices, while others are harder to predict.
https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1923056102846972063
In the end, I think SCOTUS will get this right.
The nationwide injunction feeding frenzy over the last 3 months is unprecedented and constitutionally fraught.
I'll still keep pushing for reform in Congress as we wait for SCOTUS's opinion.
The nationwide injunction feeding frenzy over the last 3 months is unprecedented and constitutionally fraught.
I'll still keep pushing for reform in Congress as we wait for SCOTUS's opinion.
https://x.com/ChadMizelle47/status/1923040085567586431
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
