Today is opinion day and as of this writing, it is allegedly the last opinion day of the term (but that could change). But so far we have a doozy:
...Trump Administration wins a push back by the Court on lower court judges: Universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
Now, first we want to give you the right understanding. Although this case arose out of a challenge to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, the issue before the Supreme Court isn’t really about that. It is about procedure.
Which sounds 100% less sexy, unless you have noticed the way that federal courts have gone hog wild, trying to tie up Trump’s agenda. Then, you start to realize it is arguably a bigger issue than the actual merits issue (how the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted).
As this is a ‘lawsplaining’ piece, we won’t got through all the ins and outs of this case, but the question is whether or not trial court justices can use one case involving one plaintiff as an excuse to dictate policy for all of America. And without having read the entire opinion, we think the answer is no.
Yes, Barrett uses the word ‘likely’ but that is the way the question is presented. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court should issue a permanent stay of the lower court. The legal test for that includes whether or not the party seeking the stay (the Trump administration in this case) is likely to succeed on the merits. So that is the question she is answering, but the language she is using suggests that the Trump administration is absolutely right on this procedural point. They aren’t just likely to win on that point. Their victory is certain—according to Barrett and the majority.
But she is constrained to put it in terms of likelihood, because that is the legal test.
More from Turley:
...Great line: "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
...From Footnote 8: "The principal dissent faults us for failing to identify a single founding era case in which this Court held that universal injunctions exceed a federal court’s equitable authority. See post, at 29 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But this absence only bolsters our…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
The cut off text:
But this absence only bolsters our case. That this Court had no occasion to reject the universal injunction as inconsistent with traditional equity practice merely demonstrates that no party even bothered to ask for such a sweeping remedy—because no court would have entertained the request.’
...In some ways, the dissents from Sotomayor and Jackson only reaffirm the impact of the opinion. Jackson is particularly hyperbolic in talkign out our "collective demise."
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
...While most would find this mild in comparison to their own heated exchanges with family members, it has the feel of a virtual cage match on this courtly institution...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
...From Jackson: "this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise."...
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 27, 2025
Turley is going on and on about this and some of it is interesting to this author, but frankly, we want to get the piece out, so we will cut off his thread, there. But you might choose to follow additional entries.
Professor Cleveland got in on it, too:
2/ SCOTUS punts on whether universal relief is necessary in the lawsuit brought by state given the difficulty in providing the states full relief, leaving that to lower court. This punt though doesn't change significance of case before here & in every other case against Trump. pic.twitter.com/FtxcTF3TR0
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 27, 2025
4/ And those involving the State as plaintiffs still don't involve the difficulties posed by a ban on birthright citizenship with people traveling across state lines. SO that will still check those universal injunctions.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 27, 2025
6/ An aside: I'd wager by the ender of her service on SCOTUS, Justice Jackson will have authored the most concurrences and dissents not joined by ANYONE.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 27, 2025
Ouch.
That all being said, while this will pare back many of these cases to specific plaintiffs, that doesn’t mean that one case won’t have an effect on another. But that mechanism will be through the operation of precedent, like it had been for most of the existence of the republic.
In any case, this is a short breaking story so we won’t go much deeper, but today the advocates of judicial oligarchy have been crushed, driven before us, and we are hearing the lamentations of their (trans) women.
(And if you get that last joke, we can probably be friends.)
RELATED: THIS GUY!!! Judge Breyer Is STILL Trying to Stop Trump From Stopping the LA Rioters (LAWSPLAINING)
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Gives Trump Back Control of the California National Guard … for Now
LAWSPLAINING: Margot Cleveland Suggests That the FBI Has Systematically Violated Defendants’ Rights
‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue
The Question Isn’t Whether Trump Can Revoke Biden’s Pardons. It’s Whether They Were Issued at all
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump’s agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member