Justice Thomas notes the lack of their use until the 1960s.
The Supreme Court held a hearing Thursday regarding nationwide injunctions related to President Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship. Judges have been using universal injunctions to halt policies from President Trump’s administration since his second term began. This case is important because it could rebalance the powers of the Executive and Judicial Branches.
Justice Clarence Thomas commented that universal injunctions are a relatively new practice and there are other ways for courts to implement blocks on potentially illegal activity. “We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Justice Thomas said.
Solicitor General John Sauer claimed that the universal injunctions “transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,” and “create a host of practical problems.“
The solicitor general also stated that these injunctions “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.“ He added, “They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere“ and “invert the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments.“
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson maintained that universal injunctions tend to bring cases quickly to the Supreme Court, allowing the high court to offer its interpretation on key legal matters as quickly as possible.
“It seems to me that when the government is completely enjoined from doing the thing it wants to do, it moves quickly to appeal that to get it to the Supreme Court, and that’s actually what we would want,” Justice Jackson said.
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For Solicitor General Sauer as he representative the president’s administration regarding the universal injunctions.
- For justices of the Supreme Court to be faithful to the Constitution as they deliberate the use of nationwide injunctions by district judges.
Sources: Miami Herald, MSN, Fox News
