Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Why Are Tax-Exempt Hospitals Getting Rich?
Next Post: Today’s must-read
Posted in:
* Click here for the ruling. Some background…
In a highly anticipated ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court put a partial end to the use of nationwide injunctions from federal courts limiting the decisions of the executive branch.
The 6-3 ruling, written by Coney Barrett, stemmed from Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, which dictates that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
But the decision could have much broader implications, as Trump has long claimed that the courts are overstepping their authority by handing down “nationwide” orders that have temporarily blocked some of his policies.
In her opinion, Coney Barrett wrote: “Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ … But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
* From the ruling…
The plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, §1, and §201 of the Nationality Act of 1940. In each case, the District Court entered a “universal injunction”—an injunction barring executive officials from applying the Executive Order to anyone, not just the plaintiffs. And in each case, the Court of Appeals denied the Government’s request to stay the sweeping relief. The Government argues that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to impose universal relief and has filed three nearly identical emergency applications seeking partial stays to limit the preliminary injunctions to the plaintiffs in each case. The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.
And the 6-3 majority did, indeed, rule that no such authority exists.
* However, this is also in the majority ruling…
Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2) (authorizing courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action”).
* Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence…
And in cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, plaintiffs may ask a court to preliminarily “set aside” a new agency rule. 5 U. S. C. §706(2); see, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 577 U. S. 1126 (2016); see also Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 603 U. S. 799, 826–843 (2024)
* Why is this important? Because, as I explained to subscribers in April, the Administrative Procedure Act is at the core of most of the lawsuits filed by attorneys general against the Trump administration.
Some context from last year…
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.” […]
Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says.”
From that landmark 2024 opinion…
And rather than safeguarding reliance interests, Chevron affirmatively destroys them by allowing agencies to change course even when Congress has given them no power to do so.
* NBC News picked up on the use of the APA against President Trump back in February…
Lawyers challenging President Donald Trump’s aggressive use of executive power in the courts are turning to a familiar weapon in their armory: an obscure but routinely invoked federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
While lawsuits challenging such provocative plans as ending birthright citizenship and dismantling federal agencies raise weighty constitutional issues, they also claim Trump failed to follow the correct procedures as required under the wonky 1946 statute. […]
Known in abbreviated form as the APA, the law allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are “arbitrary and capricious” on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy.
* Isabel and I went through Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s press releases and court filings at the time to see which legal actions invoked the Administrative Procedure Act. There was a lot…
* Jan 28: AG Raoul co-leads lawsuit to stop Trump administration from withholding essential federal funding
* Feb 10: AG Raoul leads coalition defending funding for medical and public health research
* March 5: AG Raoul leads coalition defending the integrity of the National Labor Relations Board
* March 6: AG Raoul challenges federal termination of K-12 teacher preparation pipeline grants
* March 6: AG Raoul secures preliminary injunctions in two lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies
* March 7: AG Raoul asks court to stop mass firings and seeks reinstatement of federal probationary employees
* March 13: AG Raoul issues statement on lawsuit to stop Trump administration from dismantling Department of Education
* March 20: AG Raoul files lawsuit to preserve Illinois clean-energy grants
* March 24: AG Raoul continues the fight to stop Trump from shutting down the Department of Education
* March 25: AG Raoul takes action to stop Trump administration from withholding critical emergency funding
* April 4: AG Raoul files lawsuit to protect libraries and museums
* But, as Justice Sotomayor’s dissent explains, the majority failed to see that the Administrative Procedure Act is at the core of the universal injunctions beginning in the third quarter of the 20th Century…
The relative absence of universal injunctions against the United States before the late 20th century, moreover, reflects constitutional and procedural limitations on judicial power, not equitable ones. Until the enactment of the Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act in 1976, sovereign immunity barred most suits against the Federal Government. Id., at 14–15 (citing G. Sisk, Litigation With the Federal Government §4.10(b), p. 339 (2016)). Officer suits against Cabinet officials before that point, moreover, could be brought only in Washington, D. C., due to limits on personal jurisdiction and venue that existed at the time. Brief for Legal Historians in No. 24A884 as Amici Curiae 15–16. The later emergence of universal injunctions against the United States followed the removal of those barriers and the expansion of federal actions and laws. The rise of universal injunctions therefore represents equity’s essential adaptation to modern governance.
Calvinball is essentially being alleged in this dissent.
…Adding… Governor JB Pritzker…
“Stripping birthright citizenship from people born in this country goes against rights guaranteed in the Constitution. We must stand against unconstitutional actions and stand up for the fundamental rights granted to people in the United States of America. Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a dangerous sign that Donald Trump is further consolidating power and putting his own interest above the needs of the American people. As Trump and his allies continue to attack the Rule of Law and undermine the foundations of the United States Constitution, Illinois will stay true to who we are: we are the Land of Lincoln, and we will forcefully defend the freedoms and rights of our people.”
…Adding… Attorney General Kwame Raoul…
Attorney General Kwame Raoul today issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the ongoing multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration’s executive order purporting to redefine birthright citizenship to exclude certain children born to non-citizen parents.
“Even after today’s decision, birthright citizenship – a rule that has governed our country since the end of the Civil War – remains the law in Illinois. President Trump’s attempt to strip American babies of citizenship is a flagrantly unconstitutional move that disregards the 14th Amendment and the principle of separation of powers upon which our government was founded.
“As a birthright citizen myself, this is a deeply personal issue for me. As our case continues, I will continue to fight alongside our coalition in challenging President Trump’s executive order and am confident that, under the guidance provided today by the U.S. Supreme Court, our arguments for complete relief will prevail.”
…Adding… Click here for the amended complaint…
Smart move, and not surprising; the litigators had the amended complaint ready to go if the Supreme Court ruled this way.
If the lower courts accepts this class, it would lead to the same impact as a nationwide injunction; the birthright citizenship EO would be blocked entirely. https://t.co/SuGIT7MMSe pic.twitter.com/DZvzNtw5YM
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) June 27, 2025
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 11:35 am
Previous Post: Why Are Tax-Exempt Hospitals Getting Rich?
Next Post: Today’s must-read
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Just overturn Marbury v Madison and call it a day. The only authority SCOTUS has is that which it granted itself.
Comment by Irreverent Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 11:50 am
As I understand the ruling, SCOTUS is limiting judicial rulings to the specific districts over which a judge has jurisdiction and reserving nation-wide rulings for itself. I’m sure that is an over-simplification, but the general tendency of the current SCOTUS majority is to try and keep each branch and sub-division within their respective lanes. While this may be understandable from a philosophic perspective, it is not necessarily practical (for example, why should something like birthright citizenship need a case in every district).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:07 pm
=== I’m sure that is an over-simplification===
It is. Read the post.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:13 pm
It sounds like this ruling could have all kinds of ominous implications for other controversies before the Supreme Court, but not (ultimately) for the existence of birthright citizenship itself. It will just stretch out a bit longer.
My understanding is either the Supremes will allow a class action national lawsuit to proceed, which will have the effect of a nationwide injunction, or it won’t be that time-consuming to launch a lawsuit within every federal circuit, at which point either all the circuits will uphold birthright citizenship, or some circuit (most likely the 5th) will disagree, at which point the Supremes will have to step in and issue a final order.
So this is going to take more time but the ultimate security of birthright citizenship, does not look endangered by this new ruling, though of course I am worried about any children born before the Court finally settles this, as this administration looks to do everything it can to try and deport them if it’s given even a temporary window.
Comment by ZC Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:14 pm
==As I understand the ruling, SCOTUS is limiting judicial rulings to the specific districts over which a judge has jurisdiction and reserving nation-wide rulings for itself. I’m sure that is an over-simplification, but the general tendency of the current SCOTUS majority is to try and keep each branch and sub-division within their respective lanes. While this may be understandable from a philosophic perspective, it is not necessarily practical (for example, why should something like birthright citizenship need a case in every district).==
Here’s how it would play out, according to the law professor I heard on the news this morning:
1. Trump tweets out an executive order nullifying birthright citizenship. Let’s say that impacts, in a totally made-up number for this example, 20 million people.
2. The lawsuits come in fast and furious. But since the Supremes have declared that a district ruling can no longer be applied nationally, the ruling only applies to the specified litigants. Let’s say some of those litigants are able to get class-action status in select districts (unclear if this will be allowable in all districts or states,) and total up to 1 million of the impacted citizens getting legal representation.
3. A multitude of cases wind their way through associated districts. Whether the litigants will be allowed to remain in the country while the gears of the justice system grind along remains unclear.
4. All of the district judges declare that yes, the executive order is unconstitutional, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment, granting relief to the 1 million litigants.
5. The Trump administration declines to appeal to the Supreme Court, the only level at which a true national ruling can now be made.
6. The 19 million people who were unable to join or unaware of the lawsuits are now existing in the United States solely at the whims of the Trump administration, because they were not plaintiffs in the district cases.
tl;dr The Supreme Court has now decided the protections of the legal system at the federal level no longer apply to any resident or citizen who cannot personally afford the legal representation required to take on the federal government, or the time and safety required to wait out a ruling in such a case in a system that will be flooded with them.
We have officially entered the era of Premium Tier Constitutional Rights.
Comment by Roadrager Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:32 pm
===tl;dr===
Check the newest update. Class actions are allowed.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:33 pm
the class action lawsuits will be interesting. standing a key issue.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:39 pm
Calvinball seems an apt description. I remember reading about people not understanding how Justices Bader Ginsburg and Scalia could be friends because of their philosophical differences. But they respected each other because of the consistency of each other’s ideology.
So many of the current conservative majority contradict themselves philosophically from case to case because they seem to have a focus on outcome rather than process. It’s a sad reality that we’re all facing right now.
Comment by Former Downstater Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 12:40 pm
Kavanaugh’s concurrence also emphasized that the Court should not ignore appeals on preliminary injunctions, as some Justices are want to do. Specifically a few conservative Justices. That seems an unexpected but important warning shot to the majority decision about the implications this ruling might have if the Court refuses to step into a case at the premium art injunctive stage, and lets lower courts languish in confusion until the case is fully decided on the merits. That will be important to watch going forward.
Comment by fs Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 2:02 pm
I think this was another misdirection by Trump. People all concerned about birth right citizenship which was not even argued and Trump gets his way on universal injunctions. Did not realize the scope of Administrative act so I bet he still gets stymied and when ever argued birth right citizenship will remain
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 2:08 pm
Different Constitutional protections in different states. Fun.
Comment by SAP Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 2:24 pm
I have read a couple of news media articles and I am now officially confused. I don’t know if what i posted at 12:14pm is correct.
Put simply: is relief available only for those born in -states- who challenge this EO, or those residing within -circuits-?
For example: Washington State is challenging this EO as unconstitutional. Washington won in district court. There will eventually be a ruling from the 9th Circuit (I hope in Washington’s favor).
The state of Idaho however is also in the 9th circuit. but I’m presuming the state of Idaho hasn’t lodged a challenge to this Trump EO. So if the 9th circuit rules that Trump’s EO is unconstitutional … does that in effect grant citizenship to all babies born in Idaho, too?
If it does not, then that’s a huge and worrisome gap. I was presuming if a circuit court ruled the EO was unconstitutional, that would at least apply to every state within that circuit. But after some of the news media stories focusing exclusively on -states- that challenged this EO, I am less sure.
Comment by ZC Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 2:43 pm
zc, the way I read it, relief is available to parties to the case, whether it be individual or class action. When/if a State were to challenge it on behalf of its citizens, and whether they had proper standing, was a separate analysis. I think all of what who isn’t a proper party is still to be argued on demand. In any case, the relief is to be given, whatever “whole relief” is utlimately determined, to the parties to that case. Whether those parties be parties not specifically named but otherwise properly included as part of the class, is an argument for remand and future appeals.
Comment by fs Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 3:05 pm
The dressing down of Justice Jackson in the opinion is getting far more play than the content of the decision itself.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 3:10 pm
===getting far more play than===
Maybe switch channels.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 27, 25 @ 4:24 pm