My comment was unclear, wasn't it. I think a Democrat may well win the presidency in 2028. But it won't be Gavin Newsom. I live in San Mateo County, California and worked as a lawyer in San Francisco when those two got started in politics. They are like Ken and Barbie, look great on the outside but with no substance inside. Neither one will ever be president.
I too wish the Roberts court had ruled on the birthright citizen issue now, not later. But I think they got it right on the national injunction issue. That kind of thing has been a problem since the Republicans on the bench first tried to stop the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt. That was an epic battle between the executive and judicial branches too, even escalating into threats to pack the Supreme Court.
The whole concept of stare decisis supports the decision to strike down national injunctions. In our federal system a district court decision is not binding authority even inside the district in which it is made, nor is a circuit court decision binding outside the circuit. Judges elsewhere can be persuaded by a decision outside their jurisdiction, but they are also free to ignore it and decide differently.
A national injunction turns that on its head. Any district court can flout the stare decisis rule and force its decision on the country as a whole. That conflicts with the rule of stare decisis that no decision is binding outside the jurisdiction in which it was made.
There's more to it than that, but I think Amy Barrett did a good job grounding her opinion in the case or controversy language of the Constitution and other laws and precedents. Judges should focus on applying the law to the facts and parties before it, not making policy for the country. Any president deserves that deference in our democratic country.
My views are colored by my experience in Japan. I studied Japanese law at Tokyo University on a Fulbright fellowship, then worked as lawyer in Tokyo for six years. I was surprised to learn that Japan, a civil law country, has no stare decisis rule. Any judge is free to interpret the codes as they see fit in applying them to a particular case. I asked a Japanese attorney one time why the court in our case ignored a Japanese supreme court case that seemed on point. He said, "Everyone ignores that decision. It's stupid." And he was right.
We do have an imperial judiciary in this country. They clothe themselves in robes, sit on elevated thrones, have everyone stand when they enter and leave, require supplicants to address them as "Your Honor", have grabbed more power than they were given, and are appointed for life with no accountability to the people. They are a modern aristocracy.
Nice to see for once that these judges realize they should give back some of the power they usurped. I would like to see them give back even more.
The Roberts Court’s majority hates making wide ranging or expansive rulings… unless it’s to make sure Donald Trump can get away with anything because otherwise it would make THEIR team’s voters cry :(
The thing is that it wouldnt even be a wide ranging or expansive ruling here. It would just be iterating what everyone understands the law to be. I mean, the plain language of the amendment says it.
Instead, they offer this narrow, abstract, procedural minutiae of a convoluted obtuse opinion meant to kick the can down the road after all sorts of mischief and horrible outcomes have already occurred. It's appalling. And yes, Roberts does this all the time and thinks he's being clever, when in reality, he's creating loopholes for bad actors to waltz through.
This article by Amy Howe does a better job at explaining the issues, like this:
´In her 26-page opinion for the majority, Barrett stressed that courts would have the power to issue universal injunctions only if courts had provided similar remedies in early English and U.S. history. But there is no such history, Barrett concluded. Indeed, she noted, “universal injunctions were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20th century,” and they “remained rare until the turn of the 21st century.”´
´Barrett also pushed back against the suggestion that the district courts issued the universal injunctions in this case to provide the challengers with complete relief. Although the principle of complete relief is an important one, she recognized, it is a “narrower concept” than a universal injunction, and it focuses on the idea of providing “complete relief between the parties” in a particular case.´
And this is a good one explaining the Ruling:
´In this case, Barrett wrote, “prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship. Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.”´
And for instance one issue is discrimination against pregnant women being temporarily in the US if it is not appropriate now to grant citizenship today to their children, as such issue there might be many more Congress needs to address not Courts...
And this is the central issue resolved by SCOTUS, naysayers without standing:
´Barrett responded to Jackson’s dissent with sharp words, writing that Jackson “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to” the sources on which Sotomayor’s dissent focuses “nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.” Dismissing Jackson’s argument as “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett concluded by “observ[ing] only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”´
For example, where are the Statutes regulating "equitable remedies" stemming from the 14th amendment?.
If there aren´t, then clearly Courts developed them without express authority by Congress, and if Courts can stop the Executive, clearly SCOTUS can stop lower Courts: it is all part of the judicial procedures, left to the Judiciary without strong constrains, hence they can flex from time to time.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice nor advice of any kind, but I think one issue which should be very obvious but not discussed is the USA is not the same now than in 1810.
Therefore being born in the USA in 1810 could make someone a US person because the borders were probably differently ran than now.
Immigration then was a different whole themed park.
Arriving in a ship in a pregnant mother or pre-pregnant and then being born in the USA could make you a US person in 1810, but such is hardly adequate now: even the USA was not the size, it did not have the territory it has now.
Texas, California, Nevada, New México, Florida, Ohio, Washington State, etc., where not part of the USA, being born in those places before incorporation into the Union could make such persons USA persons, but certainly not now just because they are born there.
How was immigration into the Colonies regulated there instead of how it is regulated now?.
How was immigration after the Independence Revolution regulated there instead of how it is regulated now?.
That needs a re-reading, a reinterpretation of the Constitution itself precisely because it is too old to be read literally now...
Although I am not sure the context of Marburg vs Madison is different than now, and as such it might require a reinterpretation, even if it is in fact a rewriting of the Constitution because Congress can´t do it...
Finally, Congress if in disagreement with the Courts´ decisions can in fact then rewrite the Constitution.
I know it sounds awful, but Scotus, per your writing will explain its decision once all arguments are fully addressed by lower courts, and if the Political process to amend/rewrite the Constitution: going to SCOTUS to then afterwards rewrite the Constitution that is not SCOTUS issue: again, Congress can anticipate instead of just react.
The Political mess is Congress´ responsibility not the Courts, and it goes along those lines because although the US executive can "write" laws, limited, it is Congress who is not doing it, they are in fact leaving it to thee Executive as part of a twisted Political and Legislative process.
And such is beyond SCOTUS fault, and the Executive´s, it is squarely for Congress to write those Laws and ammend the Constitution properly for the second quarter of 21st Century, which was not mentioned either in this Post.
One upshot, perhaps a desired one in some quarters, will be for a Constitutional convention to settle the issue under Article V. 19 states have filed for one, out of the 34 needed to convoke a convention that can do anything it wants to the Constitution.
How do you square your views on preliminary, universal injunctive relief with the views of Biden SG Prelogar in e.g. Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas? In that petition for cert, filed on October 10, 2024, the SG asked the Court to limit universal injunctive relief. Now, the Court's grant of the petition only on the other QP seems misguided, but it seems like the end effect (limited universal relief) was the objective of the Biden-era OSG, too.
And Prelogar was also on the record asking for limitations on universal vacatur under the APA, the famous DC Circuit mafia case in US v. Texas argued in late November 2022 (Prelogar: "Yes, I acknowledge, Mr. Chief Justice, that the lower courts, including the D.C. Circuit, have in our view been getting this one wrong. They have reflexively assumed that vacatur is authorized
On your point two, I think you're not accurately summarizing the Barrett opinion. She's using likelihood of success on the merits here to mean the merits *of the relief granted.*
Not the merits of the citizenship issue, which the government didn't even challenge.
I think this decision is consistent with the scope of judicial review and is a good thing. Nick Bagley is right.
And I'll add, looking through this, I don't know what you are talking about. In the title and in the text it was used appropriately.
If all you do is go through comment boards annoyingly criticizing the writing of others offering opinions based only on "the Queen's English" standards, you have too much time on your hands and frankly, you should rethink what you find important. You understood what was meant. They communicated to you an idea you comprehended. Why make a stink about whether or not there is an apostrophe appropriately used other than to be a complete jerk?
Btw, place your bets on how soon the GOP in ‘29 is gonna whine about President Newsom abusing executive power.
The GOP is not whining about a President Harris now, and they are not, for the same reason, going to be whining about a President Newsom in 2029.
Apparently you’ve never heard of political gravity.
My comment was unclear, wasn't it. I think a Democrat may well win the presidency in 2028. But it won't be Gavin Newsom. I live in San Mateo County, California and worked as a lawyer in San Francisco when those two got started in politics. They are like Ken and Barbie, look great on the outside but with no substance inside. Neither one will ever be president.
Fair enough. I just wanted to use a lazy example because I’m a schmuck.
I too wish the Roberts court had ruled on the birthright citizen issue now, not later. But I think they got it right on the national injunction issue. That kind of thing has been a problem since the Republicans on the bench first tried to stop the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt. That was an epic battle between the executive and judicial branches too, even escalating into threats to pack the Supreme Court.
The whole concept of stare decisis supports the decision to strike down national injunctions. In our federal system a district court decision is not binding authority even inside the district in which it is made, nor is a circuit court decision binding outside the circuit. Judges elsewhere can be persuaded by a decision outside their jurisdiction, but they are also free to ignore it and decide differently.
A national injunction turns that on its head. Any district court can flout the stare decisis rule and force its decision on the country as a whole. That conflicts with the rule of stare decisis that no decision is binding outside the jurisdiction in which it was made.
There's more to it than that, but I think Amy Barrett did a good job grounding her opinion in the case or controversy language of the Constitution and other laws and precedents. Judges should focus on applying the law to the facts and parties before it, not making policy for the country. Any president deserves that deference in our democratic country.
My views are colored by my experience in Japan. I studied Japanese law at Tokyo University on a Fulbright fellowship, then worked as lawyer in Tokyo for six years. I was surprised to learn that Japan, a civil law country, has no stare decisis rule. Any judge is free to interpret the codes as they see fit in applying them to a particular case. I asked a Japanese attorney one time why the court in our case ignored a Japanese supreme court case that seemed on point. He said, "Everyone ignores that decision. It's stupid." And he was right.
We do have an imperial judiciary in this country. They clothe themselves in robes, sit on elevated thrones, have everyone stand when they enter and leave, require supplicants to address them as "Your Honor", have grabbed more power than they were given, and are appointed for life with no accountability to the people. They are a modern aristocracy.
Nice to see for once that these judges realize they should give back some of the power they usurped. I would like to see them give back even more.
The Roberts Court’s majority hates making wide ranging or expansive rulings… unless it’s to make sure Donald Trump can get away with anything because otherwise it would make THEIR team’s voters cry :(
The thing is that it wouldnt even be a wide ranging or expansive ruling here. It would just be iterating what everyone understands the law to be. I mean, the plain language of the amendment says it.
Instead, they offer this narrow, abstract, procedural minutiae of a convoluted obtuse opinion meant to kick the can down the road after all sorts of mischief and horrible outcomes have already occurred. It's appalling. And yes, Roberts does this all the time and thinks he's being clever, when in reality, he's creating loopholes for bad actors to waltz through.
If I were running for the Democratic nomination in ‘28, my motto would be, The Roberts Court: Askin’ for a Stackin’
This article by Amy Howe does a better job at explaining the issues, like this:
´In her 26-page opinion for the majority, Barrett stressed that courts would have the power to issue universal injunctions only if courts had provided similar remedies in early English and U.S. history. But there is no such history, Barrett concluded. Indeed, she noted, “universal injunctions were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20th century,” and they “remained rare until the turn of the 21st century.”´
´Barrett also pushed back against the suggestion that the district courts issued the universal injunctions in this case to provide the challengers with complete relief. Although the principle of complete relief is an important one, she recognized, it is a “narrower concept” than a universal injunction, and it focuses on the idea of providing “complete relief between the parties” in a particular case.´
And this is a good one explaining the Ruling:
´In this case, Barrett wrote, “prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship. Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete.”´
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
And for instance one issue is discrimination against pregnant women being temporarily in the US if it is not appropriate now to grant citizenship today to their children, as such issue there might be many more Congress needs to address not Courts...
And this is the central issue resolved by SCOTUS, naysayers without standing:
´Barrett responded to Jackson’s dissent with sharp words, writing that Jackson “chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to” the sources on which Sotomayor’s dissent focuses “nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.” Dismissing Jackson’s argument as “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett concluded by “observ[ing] only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”´
For example, where are the Statutes regulating "equitable remedies" stemming from the 14th amendment?.
If there aren´t, then clearly Courts developed them without express authority by Congress, and if Courts can stop the Executive, clearly SCOTUS can stop lower Courts: it is all part of the judicial procedures, left to the Judiciary without strong constrains, hence they can flex from time to time.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice nor advice of any kind, but I think one issue which should be very obvious but not discussed is the USA is not the same now than in 1810.
Therefore being born in the USA in 1810 could make someone a US person because the borders were probably differently ran than now.
Immigration then was a different whole themed park.
Arriving in a ship in a pregnant mother or pre-pregnant and then being born in the USA could make you a US person in 1810, but such is hardly adequate now: even the USA was not the size, it did not have the territory it has now.
Texas, California, Nevada, New México, Florida, Ohio, Washington State, etc., where not part of the USA, being born in those places before incorporation into the Union could make such persons USA persons, but certainly not now just because they are born there.
How was immigration into the Colonies regulated there instead of how it is regulated now?.
How was immigration after the Independence Revolution regulated there instead of how it is regulated now?.
That needs a re-reading, a reinterpretation of the Constitution itself precisely because it is too old to be read literally now...
Although I am not sure the context of Marburg vs Madison is different than now, and as such it might require a reinterpretation, even if it is in fact a rewriting of the Constitution because Congress can´t do it...
Finally, Congress if in disagreement with the Courts´ decisions can in fact then rewrite the Constitution.
I know it sounds awful, but Scotus, per your writing will explain its decision once all arguments are fully addressed by lower courts, and if the Political process to amend/rewrite the Constitution: going to SCOTUS to then afterwards rewrite the Constitution that is not SCOTUS issue: again, Congress can anticipate instead of just react.
The Political mess is Congress´ responsibility not the Courts, and it goes along those lines because although the US executive can "write" laws, limited, it is Congress who is not doing it, they are in fact leaving it to thee Executive as part of a twisted Political and Legislative process.
And such is beyond SCOTUS fault, and the Executive´s, it is squarely for Congress to write those Laws and ammend the Constitution properly for the second quarter of 21st Century, which was not mentioned either in this Post.
Great discussion.
One upshot, perhaps a desired one in some quarters, will be for a Constitutional convention to settle the issue under Article V. 19 states have filed for one, out of the 34 needed to convoke a convention that can do anything it wants to the Constitution.
How do you square your views on preliminary, universal injunctive relief with the views of Biden SG Prelogar in e.g. Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas? In that petition for cert, filed on October 10, 2024, the SG asked the Court to limit universal injunctive relief. Now, the Court's grant of the petition only on the other QP seems misguided, but it seems like the end effect (limited universal relief) was the objective of the Biden-era OSG, too.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00413qp.pdf
And Prelogar was also on the record asking for limitations on universal vacatur under the APA, the famous DC Circuit mafia case in US v. Texas argued in late November 2022 (Prelogar: "Yes, I acknowledge, Mr. Chief Justice, that the lower courts, including the D.C. Circuit, have in our view been getting this one wrong. They have reflexively assumed that vacatur is authorized
under Section 706 of the APA.").
On your point two, I think you're not accurately summarizing the Barrett opinion. She's using likelihood of success on the merits here to mean the merits *of the relief granted.*
Not the merits of the citizenship issue, which the government didn't even challenge.
I think this decision is consistent with the scope of judicial review and is a good thing. Nick Bagley is right.
It's means "it is". The possessive is "its"
And I'll add, looking through this, I don't know what you are talking about. In the title and in the text it was used appropriately.
If all you do is go through comment boards annoyingly criticizing the writing of others offering opinions based only on "the Queen's English" standards, you have too much time on your hands and frankly, you should rethink what you find important. You understood what was meant. They communicated to you an idea you comprehended. Why make a stink about whether or not there is an apostrophe appropriately used other than to be a complete jerk?
Take a hike Grammar Nazi. Youre pedantry is nauseating. And I intentionally chose the wrong way to spell "your" just to irritate you even more.