Trump Admin Admits It Could Game Court System Without Nationwide Injunctions

Imagine this scenario: the White House prevails in a case against nationwide injunctions in the Supreme Court. This means judges are no longer able to issue such holds on federal government actions, or they face tough requirements. Meanwhile, the core issue of birthright citizenship remains undecided by the high court. Consequently, individuals affected by President Trump’s executive order must individually sue to challenge its legality. If one succeeds, like a New Yorker did in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, what happens next? Will the Trump administration acknowledge the order as invalid for everyone else in that jurisdiction, or will it persist in denying citizenship to others, prompting them to sue individually for relief from the order?
The scenario raised concerns about the Supreme Court limiting district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions in cases like those challenging the birthright citizenship executive order. Justice Kagan highlighted this during oral arguments, portraying a possible chaotic outcome. Solicitor General John Sauer could not alleviate her worries, mentioning that they usually respect circuit precedents. However, Kagan questioned whether this would be the case here.
In response, Sauer hinted that the administration might continue litigating in district courts within the same circuit, rather than accepting a Supreme Court ruling against the order. This could lead to a prolonged legal process, leaving many individuals in limbo regarding their citizenship status.
The argument drew attention to the severe implications of the executive order, potentially leaving individuals stateless and vulnerable to deportation. Kagan even suggested that the government could exploit the system by avoiding appeals, enabling them to maintain the order’s enforcement despite losing individual cases.
Overall, the debate centered on the government’s willingness to adhere to court rulings and the impact on individuals affected by the contested executive order.