Trump's week in review: Challenging universal injunctions, arresting pro-Hamas protesters
1. Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to limit universal injunctions
An application submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday and filed on behalf of Trump and several members of his administration asks the nation’s highest court to review several lower court decisions that have had the effect of blocking the president’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.
The application focused on three rulings stemming from cases filed by plaintiffs in different district courts challenging the birthright citizenship executive order: Trump v. State of Washington, Trump v. CASA, Inc., and Trump v. State of New Jersey. As explained in the document, “Three district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued overlapping nationwide injunctions at the behest of 22 States, two organizations, and seven individuals.”
The Trump administration condemned universal injunctions as exceeding the authority granted to courts in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It cited the 1973 Supreme Court decision Broadrick v. Oklahoma when asserting that “Article III confines courts to adjudicating the rights of ‘the litigants brought before the Court.’”
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The application pointed to the 2024 Supreme Court ruling FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine as evidence that “Courts may not grant relief to members who were not identified in the complaint and who did not agree to be bound by the judgment.”
“In Trump v. State of Washington, this Court should stay the preliminary injunction except as to the two individual respondents—and, if the Court concludes that the state respondents are proper parties, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States,” the application stated. “In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Court should stay the preliminary injunction except as to the five individual respondents and the eleven members of the organizational respondents identified in the complaint.”
The application requested that “In Trump v. State of New Jersey, the Court should stay the preliminary injunction in full—or, if the Court concludes that the state respondents are proper parties, except as to individuals who are born or reside in those States.” It concluded by agreeing with another judge’s declaration that “The sooner universal injunctions are ‘eliminated root and branch,’ ‘the better.’”
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com
