Oral argument today in the birthright citzenship cases today, but not on the merits of the Trump EO.
Three district courts entered "nationwide injunctions" prohibiting enforcement of the EO as to anyone, not just the people in the case.
Trump administration appealed all, and the circuit courts said they would not stay (stop) the injunctions. so now we are at the supreme court to determine if those injunctions should apply only to the actual litigants during the pendency of the lawsuits. In other words, get rid of the nationwide injunction.
So while there may be some talk about the merits of birthright citizenship, its really a side issue for now.
In short, the question is "can a court issue an injunction that applies to non-parties?"
Arguing the case are: Solicitor General John Sauer (he argued the Trump immunity case), and then the NJ solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum and a private lawyer named Kelsi Corkran. 9:00 CDT
I expect Corkran and Feigenbaum will not want this to be about the overall practice of nationwide injunctions, but want to keep it focused on just the facts of this case and why there is no emergency that requires the stay of the injunctions. They know they have an uphill battle on the nationwide injunctions as even Kagan has spoken about how they just don't make sense.
My pre-argument wildass guess is a solid majority (7-2) comes out against nationwide injunctions; plurality opinion that sets out a test for when a nationwide injunction is appropriate, then remands to the district courts to make that determination based on the facts before them. (in before Roberts is compromised and Barret just cares about cocktail parties)
Should noted that this may not matter for most cases. Most of the Trump injunctions are under the administrative procedures act, which allows a court to set aside an agency action. So the appeals of those injunctions by Trump administration deal with the merits of the action, not whether the court has the power to enter the order. More from margot Cleveland in the federalist: link here
Three district courts entered "nationwide injunctions" prohibiting enforcement of the EO as to anyone, not just the people in the case.
Trump administration appealed all, and the circuit courts said they would not stay (stop) the injunctions. so now we are at the supreme court to determine if those injunctions should apply only to the actual litigants during the pendency of the lawsuits. In other words, get rid of the nationwide injunction.
So while there may be some talk about the merits of birthright citizenship, its really a side issue for now.
In short, the question is "can a court issue an injunction that applies to non-parties?"
Arguing the case are: Solicitor General John Sauer (he argued the Trump immunity case), and then the NJ solicitor general Jeremy Feigenbaum and a private lawyer named Kelsi Corkran. 9:00 CDT
I expect Corkran and Feigenbaum will not want this to be about the overall practice of nationwide injunctions, but want to keep it focused on just the facts of this case and why there is no emergency that requires the stay of the injunctions. They know they have an uphill battle on the nationwide injunctions as even Kagan has spoken about how they just don't make sense.
My pre-argument wildass guess is a solid majority (7-2) comes out against nationwide injunctions; plurality opinion that sets out a test for when a nationwide injunction is appropriate, then remands to the district courts to make that determination based on the facts before them. (in before Roberts is compromised and Barret just cares about cocktail parties)
Should noted that this may not matter for most cases. Most of the Trump injunctions are under the administrative procedures act, which allows a court to set aside an agency action. So the appeals of those injunctions by Trump administration deal with the merits of the action, not whether the court has the power to enter the order. More from margot Cleveland in the federalist: link here
