TIME TO REFORM THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE RATIONING JUSTICE SUCKS!
Summary of "Trump v. CASA, Inc." Below
Ladies and gentlemen, gather around for the latest episode of "As the Supreme Court Turns," where the nine most powerful legal minds in the nation—well, at least six of them—have decided that justice is a rare commodity, best rationed like toilet paper during a pandemic. In their latest ruling on *Trump v. CASA, Inc.*, the court has not only punted on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship but also managed to curb the judiciary's ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Bravo! Truly, judicial minimalism at its finest—or perhaps its laziest.
Let’s set the stage. President Trump, in his never-ending quest to redefine "the land of the free," issued Executive Order No. 14160. This bold stroke of a pen aimed to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary residents in the United States. You know, because nothing screams "preserving constitutional values" like rewriting the 14th Amendment with an executive order. Naturally, lawsuits followed faster than a Kardashian launching a new product line.
Lower courts, in their pesky insistence on upholding constitutional rights, issued nationwide injunctions to block this order, deeming it likely unconstitutional. But alas, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided that universal injunctions are just too broad and unseemly for their taste. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, opined that such injunctions exceed judicial authority and suggested that relief should be limited to the plaintiffs involved. Because why protect everyone when you can just protect a select few? Truly, equity at its most exclusive.
Universal Injunctions: The New Villain in Town
The court's majority opinion reads like a love letter to historical precedent—well, selectively chosen historical precedent. Justice Barrett waxed poetic about the Judiciary Act of 1789 and English equity law, arguing that universal injunctions lack historical support. Apparently, back in the day, courts didn’t bother with such sweeping remedies. Of course, back in the day, they also didn’t have indoor plumbing or TikTok, but I digress.
The dissenting justices—Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—weren’t buying it. They argued that limiting injunctions undermines the judiciary's role as a check on executive overreach. After all, what’s the point of a court system if it can’t stop unconstitutional actions for everyone? But hey, why worry about constitutional protections when you can focus on keeping things "traditional"? Who needs progress when you have precedent?
Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Debate That Can Wait
Now, here’s where things get even juicier. The Supreme Court didn’t actually rule on whether Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment. Nope, they sidestepped that thorny issue entirely. Instead, they focused on procedural matters—because nothing says "justice for all" like ignoring the elephant in the room.
For those keeping score at home, the 14th Amendment has guaranteed birthright citizenship since 1868. Historical cases like *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* (1898) affirmed this principle, ensuring that children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status, are citizens. But Trump’s order seeks to rewrite this long-standing interpretation by requiring at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. It’s a bold move—like trying to rewrite the rules of Monopoly mid-game because you’re losing.
The court’s decision leaves this constitutional question unresolved, effectively kicking the can down the road. In the meantime, Trump’s order is set to take effect in 30 days unless further legal challenges succeed. So buckle up, folks; this legal rollercoaster isn’t over yet.
Rationing Justice: A New Judicial Trend?
The real kicker here is the court’s apparent willingness to ration justice like it’s some sort of limited-edition sneaker drop. By restricting injunctions to the plaintiffs involved, they’ve created a system where constitutional rights are protected on a case-by-case basis. If you’re not part of the lawsuit, tough luck! It’s like a VIP club for justice—exclusive access only.
This approach has far-reaching implications. Imagine if Brown v. Board of Education had only applied to Linda Brown and her family. Segregation could have remained intact everywhere else! Or if Roe v. Wade had only protected Jane Roe? The mind boggles at the absurdity.
The dissenting justices warned of these dangers, arguing that this decision allows the executive branch to act unlawfully without meaningful checks from the courts. But hey, who needs checks and balances when you can have a limited-edition version of justice?
Expanding the Supreme Court: A Modest Proposal
So where does this leave us? With a Supreme Court that hears fewer cases than your average teenager answers texts and a judicial philosophy that seems more interested in preserving tradition than protecting rights, maybe it’s time to consider expanding the court. After all, why settle for nine justices when we could have 13—or 15? Think of it as upgrading from dial-up internet to fiber optic: more bandwidth for justice!
Expanding the court could help address its increasingly selective docket and ensure a broader range of perspectives. Plus, it might make decisions like this one less likely. Because let’s face it: when six justices can effectively rewrite how justice is dispensed in this country, maybe it’s time to add a few more voices to the mix.
Conclusion: A Call for Action
The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Trump v. CASA, Inc.* is a sobering reminder that justice in America is not always universal—or even consistent. By limiting nationwide injunctions and punting on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, the court has left millions in legal limbo. It’s a decision that raises more questions than it answers and highlights the need for systemic change.
So let’s stop rationing justice like it’s some sort of scarce resource and start demanding better from our institutions. Whether it’s expanding the court or rethinking how cases are selected, one thing is clear: the status quo isn’t cutting it. And if that means shaking up the highest court in the land, so be it. After all, justice isn’t just for some—it’s for all. Or at least it should be.
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship case https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-curbs-injunctions-blocked-trumps-birthright-citizenship-rcna199742
Big Education Ape: The Roberts Supreme Court and the Balkanization of America: Unraveling the American Dream? https://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2025/06/the-roberts-supreme-court-and.html
Summary of "Trump v. CASA, Inc." (06/27/2025)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Key Topics
1. Case Background
- The case involves an emergency application for a partial stay regarding President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which addresses birthright citizenship.
- Plaintiffs include individuals, organizations, and states challenging the Executive Order, claiming it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Nationality Act of 1940.
2. Legal Issues
- The central legal question is whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions that prevent the enforcement of executive actions against non-parties.
- The Court focuses on the scope of judicial power under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
3. Court's Rulings
- The Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts, thereby granting the Government a partial stay of the injunctions issued by lower courts.
- The ruling emphasizes that federal courts can only issue injunctions that provide complete relief to the plaintiffs involved, not to non-parties.
Core Ideas
- Universal Injunctions: The Court finds that the practice of issuing universal injunctions is not historically supported by equitable principles as understood at the founding of the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1789 does not authorize such broad remedies, which lack historical precedent in English equity law and early American jurisprudence.
- Equitable Authority: The Court's ruling suggests that while equity can be flexible, it must remain within the boundaries of traditional equitable remedies. The historical context indicates that equitable relief was typically party-specific and did not extend to non-parties without a compelling justification.
- Irreparable Harm: The Court notes that the Government must demonstrate irreparable harm to justify a stay. The majority opinion argues that allowing the Executive to enforce an unconstitutional order against non-parties constitutes such harm.
Key Points and Highlights
1. Executive Order No. 14160: This order attempts to redefine who qualifies for birthright citizenship, stating that children born to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily present in the U.S. are not citizens ([1][9]).
2. Lower Court Decisions: Three District Courts issued universal injunctions against the enforcement of the Executive Order, declaring it likely unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals upheld these injunctions, emphasizing that a geographically limited injunction would be ineffective for the states involved ([5][6][65]).
3. Government's Argument: The Government sought to limit the injunctions to the plaintiffs only, arguing that universal injunctions impose undue burdens beyond what is necessary for complete relief ([6][8][24]).
4. Dissenting Opinions: Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, arguing that the ruling undermines the judiciary's ability to enforce constitutional rights universally. They contend that the decision allows the Executive to act unlawfully without checks from the courts ([54][98][102]).
5. Implications for Future Cases: The ruling sets a precedent that may limit the judiciary's role in protecting rights against executive overreach, potentially creating a system where the Executive can disregard the law for individuals not directly involved in lawsuits ([104][107]).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling in "Trump v. CASA, Inc." underscores a significant limitation on the ability of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, emphasizing a return to more traditional equitable practices. The dissenting opinions highlight concerns about the implications for the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights in the face of executive action.