Justice Roberts reins in Justice Sotomayor during hearing

This week, the Supreme Court finally took on the birthright citizenship order from Donald Trump, only that was not at the center of this particular challenge.

Instead, the Trump administration was challenging the authority of local courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and it got a bit heated.

Nationwide Injunctions

The role of the judiciary in the country is meant as one of the checks and balances on power.

And while the president is generally given a wide berth on these orders, they still have to follow the Constitution and existing laws.

When these orders are challenged, and they are likely to have an impact on the entire nation, not just the defendants, the lower courts have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction, which has been done in most of Trump’s immigration cases.

Rather than challenge the issue of birthright citizenship, Trump is hoping to have the Supreme Court rule that nationwide injunctions are overreach, and only the people directly suing should be impacted by the decision.

Limiting Their Power

There are two schools of thought here, and they are both being argued among the justices on the Supreme Court.

On one side, we have the argument that lower courts are wrong at times, with Justice Alito stating, "The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges, and they are dedicated and they are scholarly. And I'm not impugning their motives in any way. But, you know, sometimes they're wrong."

But, as Justice Kagan noted, if the administration were to have this particular case limited to just the people filing suit, and it lost the case, it would likely not appeal because of the limited number of people impacted by the challenge.

That then presents the dilemma of the case never coming before the Court to decide the constitutionality of the order itself.

Dial It Down

As I noted above, this case got a bit heated between some of the justices and White House counsel, particularly when Justice Sotomayor decided to butt heads with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer.

At one point, Sotomayor stated, "You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court," with Sauer responding, "We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class only.”

Sotomayor then tried to cut him off, but Justice Roberts blocked her, stating, "Can I hear the rest of his answer,” at which point Sauer was able to finish his statement.

There is both doubt and support on both sides, but my gut tells me that the status quo will hold here. Justice Barrett also seemed a bit peeved at this, which I will get more into in another report after I fully digest her comments. Bottom line, I don’t see Trump winning this case to block nationwide injunctions, but I think it will be a very close call.