President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to remove the power that lower court judges have used to block his policies.
In an emergency appeal filed Thursday, Trump’s legal team requested that the Supreme Court intervene to stop judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that prevent his actions from taking effect across the entire country.
This appeal centers on his attempt to end birthright citizenship, but it could have far-reaching effects on many other Trump administration policies. Lower court judges have used nationwide injunctions to block a variety of Trump’s moves, including efforts to cut federal medical research funding and end diversity programs.
Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued that federal district judges should not have the authority to issue broad, nationwide orders that block policies across the U.S. Instead, she suggested that injunctions should apply only to the specific people or groups involved in the case, or be limited to the judge’s district. Harris contended that such sweeping injunctions prevent the executive branch from functioning properly, as any judge could block presidential actions nationwide.
Harris pointed out that in just one month—February—15 nationwide injunctions were issued against Trump administration actions, more than the 14 injunctions against the federal government in the first three years of President Joe Biden’s term. She said the practice of issuing such injunctions has become increasingly common and has reached “epidemic proportions.”
The appeal stems from three nationwide injunctions issued against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. His order sought to end the automatic citizenship of children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on short-term visas. The judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state ruled that the order violated the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Trump is not asking the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of his executive order just yet. Instead, he wants the high court to remove or limit the injunctions that are currently blocking the order. Harris referred to this request as “modest,” urging the court to take action before the practice of issuing broad injunctions becomes even more entrenched.
The practice of nationwide injunctions has drawn growing criticism from both legal scholars and government officials. Critics argue that individual judges wield too much power by being able to block federal policies nationwide. They also point out that such injunctions can be strategically used by opponents of a policy to file lawsuits in specific districts or against certain judges who may be more sympathetic to their cause.
Some legal experts believe that nationwide injunctions are necessary to prevent unlawful or unconstitutional actions by the federal government from continuing unchecked. However, the Trump administration argues that these injunctions create confusion and disrupt the government’s ability to function effectively.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor and removes the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, it could prompt more lawsuits from individuals who could be impacted by the birthright citizenship policy. These people may choose to file their own lawsuits or join existing ones. However, these cases are often slower and more complicated than the swift relief provided by the nationwide injunctions issued by the lower courts.
In addition to challenging the power of lower court judges, Trump’s legal team is also asking the Supreme Court to limit the ability of states to file lawsuits against federal policies. Recently, Democratic-led states have filed numerous lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies on issues such as transgender rights, data security, and federal grant programs. Trump’s team argues that states should not be allowed to sue the federal government on behalf of their residents.
This appeal represents a broader effort by Trump to limit the power of both individual judges and states in challenging federal policies. A Supreme Court decision to remove lower court judges’ ability to block policies nationwide could have significant implications for future legal challenges involving Trump administration actions.
