Justice Kagan criticizes Trump administration's legal approach in Supreme Court
- Justice Elena Kagan pressed the Solicitor General on the practicalities of ending universal injunctions during Supreme Court oral arguments.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about the Trump administration's willingness to follow federal court precedents, indicating a legal tension.
- The Supreme Court's ruling on this case could have wide-ranging implications for future lawsuits against executive actions.
On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States deliberated on a significant case concerning birthright citizenship and the issuance of nationwide injunctions against executive orders. Justice Elena Kagan pressed U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer regarding the implications of eliminating universal injunctions. Kagan highlighted the Trump administration's consistent losses in lower courts on matters surrounding the new citizenship order, revealing a pattern of legal struggle for the administration. As a result, she argued that if the Supreme Court were to restrict lower courts' power, it could inhibit individuals' rights against unlawful government actions. Also during the session, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed her concern about the Trump administration's respect for federal court precedents. Barrett queried Sauer about whether the government intended to follow rulings from lower courts, notably related to a Second Circuit precedent that deemed the new birthright order unconstitutional. This exchange indicated a deeper tension between the administration's legal strategy and judicial expectations. The case stems from lower court rulings blocking President Donald Trump's executive order which aimed to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. These nationwide injunctions have led to significant political discourse regarding judicial authority and executive power. Republican lawmakers have voiced concerns about judges overstepping their bounds, asserting that such injunctions allow judges to make decisions that should be reserved for the legislature. The implications of this Supreme Court decision could extend far beyond the current case, potentially affecting more than 310 federal lawsuits challenging the executive branch's actions since Trump took office in January 2025. Legal experts predict a divided reaction from the court's justices and foresee a careful negotiation between ruling on the specifics of birthright citizenship while addressing the legal mechanics of nationwide injunctions going forward.