The US Supreme Court on Friday handed a significant victory to Donald Trump when curbing lower courts’ power to block executive orders.
The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president’s efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies, reports news agencies.
President Trump was beaming as he addressed reporters at the White House briefing room podium, calling it a “big, amazing decision” which the administration is “very happy about”. He said it was a “monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”.
The court’s decision not only impacts Trump’s birthright citizenship order, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy actions that have been temporarily thwarted by similar injunctions, reports BBC.
The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment.
On Friday, the nation’s highest court allowed Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright zenship to go into effect in a month’s time; the cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, says AP.
Enforcement of the policy cannot take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
States traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents. Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may desire. That sets up big legal battles to come.
“As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order,” Barrett wrote. “The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments.”
Trump said that the “birthright citizenship hoax” has been “indirectly, hit hard” and that the decision would prevent “scamming of our immigration process”.
Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the US will end birthright citizenship in October during its next session.
The court’s decision to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have immediate, wide-ranging consequences.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have often criticised what they say are ideological jurists in federal district courts who have been able to singlehandedly block executive actions and even legislation passed by Congress.
While doing away automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants born on US soil is at the centre of this high-profile case, there are a number of other actions taken by Trump in recent months that have also been held up by lower-level judges. From Trump’s inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Service counts 25 such instances.
Following the court’s decision on Friday, Trump told journalists, “We can now properly file to proceed with policies that have been wrongly enjoined.”
Lower courts have blocked the president’s cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes and other government agencies, limited his ability to terminate government employees, put other immigration reforms on hold and suspended White House issued changes to election processes.
With the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, the administration is in a much stronger position to ask courts to allow it to push forward on many of these efforts.
During the Biden presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offering student loan forgiveness, modifying immigration rules. Courts blocked changes to normalised immigration status for some undocumented migrants during Barack Obama’s presidency, as well, and prevented him from making more white-collar employees eligible for overtime pay.
In all these types of cases, courts will ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court in its opinion said, ” The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”
But that will come further along in the judicial process, at the appellate and Supreme Court level. In the meantime, presidents – Donald Trump and his successors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats –will have more time and space to act.