Politics and intellectual consistency go together like banana on pizza. But the reaction from Democrats to last week’s Supreme Court ruling on judicial authority deserves special attention.
In a 6-3 ruling Friday, the justices limited the ability of lone federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that restrict the ability of the executive branch to enforce statutes or regulations. The practice was largely unheard of for much of American history but came into general use in the 1960s.
In recent years, however, the number of such edicts has soared as Republicans and Democrats ask judges to restrain a president of the opposition party. Democrats have been especially aggressive in this fashion against President Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal describes the playbook: “Find plaintiffs who can claim harm, sue in a favorable jurisdiction and argue that a ruling with nationwide scope is essential to maintaining order.”
The case in question involved Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. Attorneys general in blue states sued to block the decree, and a federal judge ruled in their favor. The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the president’s order, and it acknowledged that universal injunctions may be appropriate in certain instances. But the ruling declared that most injunctions may protect only the plaintiff in question and apply only in the court’s jurisdiction.
“When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, “the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Many analysts portrayed the decision as a victory for Trump, and some Democrats lashed out at the court. But the ruling is ideologically neutral and will apply when Republicans are in the minority and a Democrat occupies the White House. In fact, many Democratic critics are arguing with themselves.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, was once an opponent of nationwide injunctions, declaring in April 2024 that right-wing “activists are exploiting the current makeup of the judicial system to circumvent the legislation process and overturn the will of the American people.”
That same month, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Activist plaintiffs should not be able to hand-pick individual judges to set nationwide policy.”
No less an authority than Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted during a 2022 speech to Northwestern University law students that “it just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through normal process.”
Justice Kagan sided with the minority Friday. Perhaps she re-evaluated the arguments. Or perhaps her constitutional principles depend on who sits in the Oval Office.
— Las Vegas Review-Journal
Related Articles
New CIA report criticizes investigation into Russia’s support for Trump in 2016
Trump to meet at White House with American hostage freed from Gaza
FDA vaccine official restricted COVID vaccine approvals against the advice of agency staff
As Congress votes on Medicaid cuts, some wonder how they’ll get by
Columbia University student data stolen by politically motivated hacker, university says
