Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Case Discussed by Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog

A Peek into the Supreme Court's Firestorm: Universal Injunctions' Impact on Administrations

Host INSKEEP here with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog, who just finished her potent Duchess Earl Grey. Let's dive in!

INSKEEP: So, Amy, what's the lowdown on the Administration's frantic focus on universal injunctions?

HOWE: Well, it's a stumbling block for all, from Democrats to Republicans. Essentially, universal injunctions allow a single judge in, say, San Francisco, to block an administration's policy everywhere in the country. That's a powerful tool that's been used extensively during the Trump era but previously as well. Think back to 2015, when such a tactic hindered the Obama administration in implementing DACA[ER4].

INSKEEP: Sounds like they'd argue facts when they've got facts, law when they've got the law, and a technicality when they're backed into a corner, right? But does the law even side with them on this one?

HOWE: Precisely! They're resorting to universal injunctions because, otherwise, they'd likely lose on the constitutionality of, say, denying birthright citizenship[ER1]. Some justices have expressed frustration with these injunctions in recent years and the Biden administration has already tried to drag the Supreme Court into the fight[ER4].

INSKEEP: So, let's imagine a judge in Seattle rules something is unconstitutional, and it applies only to that one person. This administration intends to deny citizenship to the rest, am I right?

HOWE: Well, they didn't exactly say they wouldn't, which seems to have concerned Justice Amy Coney Barrett[ER4]. Moreover, there's a lingering skepticism towards this administration, given past instances like the forced deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man, despite the Supreme Court's order for his return[ER4].

INSKEEP: Oh, this is intriguing. So, we've got two major questions here - the constitutionality of denying birthright citizenship and the matter of universal injunctions. Did it seem to you, Amy, that the justices were also worrying about the administration's reluctance to obey the Court's decisions?

HOWE: Absolutely, it did. They would prefer to limit universal injunctions, but they're concerned that such a move might empower administrations to bypass judicial decisions[ER6].

INSKEEP: Thanks for joining us, Amy. Appreciate your insight!

HOWE: My pleasure being here! Thanks for having me.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary.

Enrichment Data:

History of Universal Injunctions

Early Development and Rare Use:

Universal injunctions were rare before the late 20th century. They became more common and impactful in the 21st century, particularly around 2015[ER4].

2015 and the Rise of Universal Injunctions:

The use of universal injunctions gained prominence in 2015 when Texas sued the Obama administration over DACA, leading to a national injunction. This was the beginning of a substantial increase in the use of universal injunctions[ER4].

Implications for the Biden and Trump Administrations

Trump Administration

Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship: The Trump administration faced numerous challenges to its policies via universal injunctions, such as the executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Judges in multiple states issued nationwide injunctions blocking these orders[ER2].
Impact on Policy: These injunctions stopped Trump's attempts to implement policies nationwide, limiting his ability to enforce executive orders across the country.

Biden Administration

Impact on Policy Initiatives: While less prominent in the results, the Biden administration also faced challenges through universal injunctions. These injunctions have continued to affect various administrations' initiatives[ER4].
General Implications: The increased use of universal injunctions has been seen as a tool for judicial oversight of executive actions, often forcing administrations to reconsider or reframe policies to comply with court rulings.

Supreme Court Consideration

Recent Developments

Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA: The Supreme Court's consideration of universal injunctions in recent cases, such as Trump v. CASA, highlights the ongoing debate. Justices have expressed varied views, with some supporting their use for protecting constitutional rights and others questioning their scope and limits[ER1][ER2].
Potential Outcomes: The Court's decision could significantly impact how federal policies are challenged and enforced. Limiting universal injunctions could empower the executive branch to implement policies more freely, while preserving them would maintain strong judicial oversight[ER2].

Implications for Future Policy Initiatives

Judicial Oversight: The ability of federal courts to block policies nationwide has been a crucial check on executive power, affecting policy implementation across administrations. Changes in the use of universal injunctions could alter the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches.
Policy Stability: The outcome of these cases will influence the stability and predictability of policy initiatives under future administrations, as the availability of judicial remedies like universal injunctions directly affects how policies are enforced across the country.

The Biden administration has continued to grapple with challenges to its policies via universal injunctions, much like the Trump administration did in 2015, during the DACA debacle.
War-and-conflicts and politics can lead to migration, which could influence policy-and-legislation, including the use of universal injunctions to challenge questionable executive orders.
Crime-and-justice issues like the forced deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, despite a Supreme Court order for his return, raise questions about an administration's willingness to obey court decisions, adding another layer of concern to the universal injunctions debate.
Beyond the immediacy of universal injunctions, the implications for policy stability in the future hinge on the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches. General-news events, accidents, fires, and any other unforeseen circumstances could yet sway the Supreme Court's stance on the matter.