SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
demand justice
By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, Supreme Court Declares 'Open Season on All Our Rights'
In a ruling that stems from the president's birthright citizenship order, the "conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses."
Jun 27, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a flurry of decisions Friday morning, including a ruling related to U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that led legal experts, elected Democrats, immigrants, and rights advocates to warn—as MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich put it—that the justices "just made it easier for Trump to take away your rights."
Three different federal judges had granted nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, described as "blatantly illegal and cruel." Rather than considering the constitutionality of the president's order, the justices examined the relief provided by lower courts.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet."
In Friday's 6-3 ruling for Trump v. CASA, the right-wing justices held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, delivering the majority opinion.
"The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses," wrote Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. "I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely."
"Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed," the journalist explained. "This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by the other two liberals, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote her own. Many other critics of the high court's majority decision echoed their warnings about the expected consequences of the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the grassroots coalition Popular Democracy, in a Friday statement.
"This ruling takes away the power of lower courts to block unconstitutional moves from the government on a federal level— allowing the government to act with impunity and apply law inconsistently across the country," they stressed. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'No right is safe in the new legal regime this court creates.'"
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants and a citizen by birthright, said Friday that "I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution."
"For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has reaffirmed that all people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, with equal rights under the law. It has been and is the law of the land, consistently upheld by courts and scholars across the political spectrum," she noted. "But in limiting nationwide injunctions, Trump's loyalists have decided to—once again—put him above the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles of our nation."
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, highlighted that same line from Sotomayor and also explained that "results like this are the result of a yearslong takeover by Trump and special interest allies to capture the courts and install conservative majorities that help him advance an extreme ideological agenda."
"Let's be clear: The Trump administration appealed this case to undermine the power of federal judges, rather than address his blatantly unconstitutional executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship," Ciccone said.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said that "as Justice Jackson notes, 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'"
"Today, six justices on the Supreme Court eliminated one of the most effective checks on Donald Trump, clearing a path for him to impose his extreme, anti-democratic agenda on any American who can't afford a lawyer or doesn't join the game of litigation Whac-A-Mole now required to protect their basic rights," he added. "This ruling should send a chill down every American's spine."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also described the decision as chilling and argued on social media that "the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights."
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, called out the high court for failing "every American," and said that "we must heed Justice Jackson's warning," citing that same line from her dissent.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the group Demand Justice, pointed to another line, agreeing that "as Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, the court has created an 'existential threat' to the rule of law and the system of checks and balances upon which our nation was founded."
"The same six justices who gave Trump king-like immunity for criminal acts have now limited the ability of the judicial branch to protect everyday Americans from unconstitutional or illegal executive overreach," she said, referring to a decision issued a year ago. "Just as Republican leaders in Congress duck their heads and carry out Trump's bidding, the Republican appointees on the court do so as well."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took aim at both his GOP colleagues and the justices, saying that "the Supreme Court's decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."
"Congressional Republicans have to choose between being bystanders or co-conspirators," Schumer added, urging them to challenge Trump. "Congress must check this unimpeded power, but for that to happen, Republican members must stand up for core American democratic values and not for unchecked presidential power of the kind that our Founders most deeply feared."
In addition to sounding the alarm about what the high court's decision means for all future legal battles, critics noted that although the justices didn't weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order, it could soon start to impact families nationwide.
"The administration's attempt to deny citizenship to many children born in the United States is unquestionably unconstitutional, and nothing in today's Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Yet, the court has nonetheless created a real risk that the administration's unconstitutional order will go into effect in many parts of the country in 30 days," said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), vowing to continue the fight against the order.
FWD.us president Todd Schulte pointed out that with its new ruling, "the Supreme Court has opened the door to a fractured system in which a child born in one state is recognized as a citizen, but a child born in another is not."
"If the president's order is allowed to go into effect by the lower courts, there will be immediate chaos for parents, hospitals, and local officials, and long-term harm for families and communities across the country," he warned.
Juana, a pregnant mother, CASA member, and named plaintiff in a lawsuit over the order, said Friday that "I'm heartbroken that the Supreme Court chose to limit protections instead of standing firmly for all families like mine."
"Every child born here deserves the same rights, no matter who their parents are," Juana declared. "I joined this lawsuit not just for my baby, but for every child who deserves to be recognized as fully American from their first breath. We won't stop fighting until that promise is real for everyone."
Shortly after the ruling, organizations including the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and LDF filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.
"The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Passes Bill That Moves Toward Making Trump a 'King With Unlimited Power'
"House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said one advocate. "But that's not how our democracy works."
Apr 10, 2025
With the Trump administration's attacks on the First Amendment, birthright citizenship, and other constitutional rights in full swing, Republicans in the U.S. House on Wednesday passed a bill that one advocacy group called a "sneak attack" on another bedrock principle of U.S. democracy.
"The passage of the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) is an ideological attack on the checks and balances of our Constitution," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters.
The bill, which passed 219-213, with only Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) joining Democrats in opposing it, would limit U.S. District Court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive orders.
The legislation was proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) after federal judges blocked several actions by Trump, including his executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, his mass expulsion of immigrants to El Salvador's prison system, his freeze on federal grants and loans, and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) mass firings of federal employees.
NORRA "brings us one step closer to dismantling our democracy for the benefit of one man and his extreme agenda that is actively harming people across the country," said Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the judicial reform group Demand Justice. "Anyone who voted in favor of this bill failed them and our country today."
"Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Members of the judiciary including Judges James Boasberg, Paul A. Engelmayer, and John Batestes have faced calls for impeachment over their respective rulings blocking Trump from sending planeloads of immigrants to El Salvador, barring DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department's payment system, and directing federal health agencies to restore public health data to their websites after Trump ordered them to delete it.
With impeachment votes unlikely to succeed, Stewart said the legislation proposed by Issa "is a political attempt to restrain and block our federal courts from their constitutional responsibility."
"Judges appointed to the federal bench are independent bodies that review executive and legislative actions to determine their constitutionality. This is a simple process that has been in place for centuries," said Stewart.
"The League believes that all powers of the U.S. government should be exercised within the constitutional framework to protect the balance among the three branches of government," she added. "Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, suggested that in their attacks on federal judges, Republicans are trying to weaken "the first line of defense against Donald Trump's attempts to cut essential services and attack our freedoms."
"In response to legal rulings that haven't gone Trump's way, House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said Harvey. "But that's not how our democracy works. Trump is a president bound by the checks and balances of our Constitution, not a king with unlimited power."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) pointed to the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education to highlight the irrationality of Republicans' attempt to bar judges from applying their rulings to the entire nation.
"A nationwide injunction is a necessary part of the judicial tool kit," Raskin told NBC News. "Why should every person affected [by an issue] have to go to court? Why should millions of people have to create their own case? Why should Brown vs. Board of Education have applied to just Linda Brown as opposed to everybody affected?"
Harvey called on Senate leaders to "uphold their oath and block any attempt to weaken the federal courts."
"Anything less," she said, "would be walking away from their constitutional duties."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Federal Judges Face Threats of Violence After Ruling Against Trump
"When you can't win in court, set loose your flying monkeys to intimidate judges and their families?" asked one Democratic senator. "That's the America we want?"
Mar 20, 2025
Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January, the judicial branch has served as something of a firewall against some of his attempts to subvert congressional authority and undermine long-established constitutional law, with federal judges blocking his orders to end birthright citizenship, cut foreign aid funding, and other parts of his agenda.
But as the rulings have been met with relief from rights advocates, the judges who have handed down the decisions have faced mounting threats from anonymous people or groups who appear to support Trump—with remarks from Republican lawmakers and the president himself only emboldening the threats of violence.
As The New York Times reported Wednesday, judges who have ruled against the administration's policies in recent weeks have received "bomb threats, anonymous calls to dispatch police SWAT teams to home addresses, even the delivery of pizzas, a seemingly innocuous prank" which is meant to convey an ominous message, suggested one judge who was targeted.
"They know where you and your family members live," said the judge, who is overseeing a case pertaining to the Trump administration.
On Tuesday, Trump called for the impeachment of Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and derided him as a "radical left lunatic" after Boasberg barred the administration from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. His comments followed those of Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), who pledged to file articles of impeachment against the "activist" judge.
Trump's remarks prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to warn that "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," advising those who oppose federal rulings to do so via "the normal appellate review process."
Roberts' warning didn't stop anonymous critics on social media from demanding that Boasberg be sent to Guantánamo Bay "for 20 years" and calling him a "terrorist-loving judge."
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who traveled with Trump during his campaign last year, told her 1.5 million social media followers that the judge's family "is a national security threat."
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday likened the response of Trump and the MAGA movement to the judiciary to setting loose "flying monkeys to intimidate judges and their families."
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the court's right-wing judges who was appointed by Trump, broke with the other conservative justices earlier this month when she ruled against the president's freeze on foreign aid—prompting allies of the president to deride Coney Barrett as a "closet Democrat" and a "DEI hire," referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that Trump has pushed to end.
Days after the ruling, Coney Barrett's sister received a threat—which turned out to be false—that there was a pipe bomb in her mailbox.
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington also reported that he had been targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which a false tip was sent to local law enforcement, prompting officers to show up at the judge's home expecting to find an armed intruder. The attack followed Coughenour's ruling that blocked Trump's order attempting to abolish birthright citizenship.
Reuters reported earlier this this month that "U.S. marshals have warned judges of unusually high threat levels."
"Security has been bolstered for some judges assigned cases over Trump administration initiatives," the outlet reported.
The government watchdog Public Citizen said the threats against judges who rule against Trump is a "red flag."
"This presidency is starting to look a lot like a dictatorship," said the group.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the court reform advocacy group Demand Justice, said that "judges should not face threats of impeachment, violence, or worse, simply for doing their jobs and upholding their oaths to the rule of law and Constitution."
"Criticism and public discourse around rulings is a part of our democracy," said Buchanan. "Threats and intimidation are not."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular