US EditionJonathan Turley Details ‘Pretty Hot Argument’ Over Nationwide Injunctions At Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court is reviewing Trump v. CASA, a case challenging a 2024 executive order that seeks to eliminate automatic U.S. Citizenship for children born in the country to parents without legal status, originally filed in a federal court in New Hampshire.
- This lawsuit arose amid numerous challenges to Trump administration policies that triggered dozens of nationwide injunctions blocking policy enforcement across the country.
- Nationwide injunctions have allowed single judges in various districts, including Maryland and Massachusetts, to pause the birthright citizenship order and other policies, raising concerns about judges effectively setting national policy.
- Juan Proao of LULAC highlighted that no previous president has issued such a high volume of executive orders—exceeding 150—within a brief period, while opponents contend that seeking favorable courts through forum shopping damages the credibility of the judicial system.
- A Supreme Court decision narrowing the use of nationwide injunctions could reshape federal court power and affect how future federal policies are challenged or upheld nationwide.
7 Articles
7 Articles
Jonathan Turley Reports "Hot" Supreme Court Arguments Over Nationwide Injunctions In Trump Birthright Case
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday regarding the use of nationwide injunctions became "pretty hot," according to George Washington University law
The Daily Caller
Conservative ReviewJonathan Turley Details ‘Pretty Hot Argument’ Over Nationwide Injunctions At Supreme Court
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News host Harris Faulkner that oral arguments at the Supreme Court over nationwide injunctions got “pretty hot.”
Some Reasons to be Skeptical of Nationwide Injunctions
I disagree, on the merits, with President Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens who are born in the United States because their parents were here without a green card. I will explain my reasons for disagreeing with the President in more detail in a future blog post. My reading of the Constitution, the caselaw, the scholarly commentary, and of our history leaves me persuaded that United States v. Wong …
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 71% of the sources lean Right
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
Ownership
To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage
