In a dramatic and revealing oral argument this week, the U.S. Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the Trump administration's attempt to weaken the power of federal courts by restricting nationwide injunctions—particularly in the context of its challenge to birthright citizenship.
While the case before the Court does not directly address the constitutional validity of modifying the 14th Amendment, it centers on a critical procedural issue with sweeping consequences: whether lower federal courts can continue issuing injunctions that halt executive policies nationwide, or whether relief should only apply to individual plaintiffs in specific cases.
At Saluja Law, we believe this is not a mere technicality—it's a fundamental check on executive power.
During the hearing, justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed deep skepticism of the administration's position. Justice Sonia Sotomayor posed a stark hypothetical—what if the government ordered all civilian firearms to be confiscated in violation of the Second Amendment? Under the administration's theory, a federal court could not issue a nationwide injunction to stop such a clearly unconstitutional act. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson characterized the government's position as a dangerous “catch me if you can” strategy, allowing unlawful policies to remain in force unless and until the perfect plaintiff emerges in the perfect court.
Justice Elena Kagan didn't mince words, highlighting the administration's track record of repeated losses in lower courts and questioning whether the real goal is to sidestep judicial scrutiny altogether.
Even conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, appeared wary. Barrett questioned the necessity of the administration's argument, while Gorsuch aligned with Justice Kagan's probing of potential abuses of executive power.
If the Trump administration were to succeed in curbing nationwide injunctions, it would strip federal courts of one of their most powerful tools for restraining unconstitutional government overreach. It would effectively permit the executive branch to continue implementing unlawful policies—even after being struck down—so long as the relief is limited to individual plaintiffs.
The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could redefine the balance of power between the judiciary and the presidency. Early indicators suggest a majority may reject the administration's arguments and affirm the essential role of federal courts in upholding constitutional rights.
At Saluja Law, we will continue to monitor this case closely and advocate for a legal system that holds all branches of government accountable. The stakes for due process, civil liberties, and immigrant rights could not be higher.
Stay informed. Stay engaged. Justice depends on it.