Supreme Court limits judges’ power to halt Trump’s birthright citizenship order

THE Supreme Court Friday, federal judges limited to issue universal injunctions, which had been used to block the president Donald Trump of the implementation of its end of decree Citizenship of the right of birth.

6-3 decisionWho has divided the Court in terms of conservative majority according to ideological lines, helps to open the way to the Trump administration to advance with its efforts to unilaterally upset the rules of longtime American citizenship and other major policies.

The decision also strengthens Trump’s frequent assertions that its vast use of its executive powers has been unjustly thwarted by overtaking.

“Giant wins at the Supreme Court of the United States!” Wrote Trump on social networks After the publication of the opinion.

The case was focused on national injunctions that the judges of the Federal District Court had granted in three separate proceedings contesting the citizenship order of Trump.

These injunctions temporarily blocked the application of the order while business moved into the judicial system.

But Friday, the Supreme Court judged that “universal injunctions probably exceed the fair authority that the congress has granted to the federal courts”.

The majority granted the Trump administration’s request to break these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are wider than necessary to fully relieve each applicant the position to continue.”

Above all, the Court refused to decide whether the decree, which would finish centuries of citizenship of register in the United States, was constitutional.

“Some say that the universal injunction gives[s] The judiciary is a powerful tool to verify the executive power, “” Judge Amy CONEY BARRETT, one of the three appointed by Trump on the bench, wrote for the majority.

“But the federal courts do not exercise general surveillance of the executive power; they solve the cases and the controversies in accordance with the authority that the congress has given them,” wrote Barrett.

“When a court concludes that the executive power has acted illegally, the answer is not for the court to also exceed its power,” she wrote.

In a dazzling dissent, judge Sonia Sotomayor denounced the government’s efforts to end the citizenship of the dawn, while criticizing her conservative colleagues for having “shamefully” allowed the Judicial Game of the Trump administration.

“No right is certain in the new legal regime that the Court creates,” wrote Sotomayor in dissent, where it was joined by other liberal judges Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Today, the threat is the citizenship of the right of birth. Tomorrow, a different administration can try to grasp firearms of law -respecting citizens or prevent people from certain confessions from gathering to worship,” wrote Sotomayor.

The “illusion of patents” of the executive order of Trump “reveals the seriousness of the majority of the majority and underlines why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this type of case,” she wrote.

“As each source of imaginable law confirms, citizenship of the country’s law is the law of the country.”

In a separate and also vehement dissent, Jackson added: “The court’s decision to authorize the executive to violate the Constitution with regard to anyone who has not yet continued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

The offer to cancel universal injunctions is essentially “a request for authorization from this court to adopt illegal behavior”, Jackson, who was appointed by former president Joe Bidenwrote.

“With its decision today, the majority is largely responding to the wish of the government,” she wrote. “But, in my opinion, if this country will persist as a nation of laws and not men, the judiciary has no choice but to deny it.”