Federal District Judicial Activists have stopped most of Trump’s actions. It’s wrong that an ideological judge in one district can impose a freeze nationwide.
They control Presidential policy.
The Executive Branch administers and enforces the laws of the United States.
The Legislative Branch creates the laws of the United States.
The Judicial Branch rules on the constitutionality of the laws created by the Legislative Branch.
Neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch is permitted to create laws.
The Judicial Activists are creating laws.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal district judges “likely exceed” their authority when they issue nationwide injunctions ordering that presidential executive orders may not go into effect until objections against them have played out in court.
It’s a violation of the separation of powers.
It’s also a violation of the separation of powers if a president:
- Changes an existing law for the nation
- Ignores an existing law for the nation
- Creates a new law for the nation
Here are 5 facts you should know about the Supreme Court ruling:
Fact #1. What the blockbuster case before the Supreme was about.
The case before the Court was Trump v. CASA.
Several lawsuits were filed against President Trump’s executive order abolishing birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, and for children born to people in the U.S. on temporary work visas.
The Court ruled that “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”[1]
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, also stated, “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power too.”[2]
Fact #2. What the case was not about.
The question of the constitutionality of the president’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship was not resolved in Trump v. CASA.
Also, the federal district court injunction ruling that the plaintiffs who had filed the lawsuits were harmed by the presidential executive order was not addressed.
Justice Barrett stated that “the birthright citizenship issue is not before us.”[3]
Fact #3. How the opposition reacted.
People for the American Way sounded alarm bells.
An alert-type email to supporters stated, “The Supreme Court just took away a critical tool we had to stop a lawless president… the far-right justices eliminated one of the courts’ most powerful tools to stop government abuse: the ability of federal judges to block unlawful policies nationwide.”[4]
The email goes on to claim, “This is more than a legal decision. It’s a calculated step toward authoritarianism. It creates what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called ‘a zone of lawlessness’ – where the Executive branch is free to act above the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.”[5]
Writing in dissent in the Trump v. CASA case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “The majority ignores entirely whether the President’s Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question of whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the Order’s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case.”[6]
Fact #4. Questions that haven’t been asked that should be asked.
In thinking about the 14th Amendment and President Trump’s Executive Order, two important questions should be asked and answered:
- What is the spirit of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment? Was it the intention of the state legislators who ratified this amendment that it apply to children born to illegal immigrants who crossed the border and came into the U.S. in defiance of U.S. law?
- What is the spirit of President Trump’s executive order? Is it to ensure that children of illegal immigrants are kept with their parents when the parents are deported, rather than being separated and placed into foster care because they are U.S. citizens?
No one on either side of this issue has asked or discussed these questions.
It might lead to a wiser solution to discuss the reasons behind laws and executive orders rather than focusing only on the letter of the laws.
For example, what does current law demand if parents are deported because they are here illegally, but they have a baby or a young child who is a U.S. citizen by birth?
Do any laws need to be changed in order to do what’s best for families who have split citizenship status?
If so, Congress needs to act – and act quickly.
Fact #5. Where we go from here.
As things stand right now – after the Supreme Court ruling – it’s up to individuals to file lawsuits against the president if they believe an executive order violates the Constitution.
A class action lawsuit could also be filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs.
However, in a class action lawsuit, each individual seeking relief would have to voluntarily join the class.
The answer is to have congress set up a three-panel judge review of any nationwide injunction, which would likely kill any Judicial Activist and court stopping.
And speed any such controversy to the Supreme Court.
Action:
Get my book The Great Deception: 10 Shocking Dangers and the Blueprint for Rescuing the American Dream and read all about Judicial Activism.
Click HERE to get The Great Deception – Craig Huey.
You can order the book on Amazon HERE.
You can get the audiobook version on Amazon HERE.
Or the Kindle Edition on Amazon HERE.
You can also get an autographed edition online HERE or by phone at 615-814-6633.
Or you can send a check for $26.13 (including shipping) payable to Media Specialists and send it to this address:
Media Specialists
1313 4th Ave N.
Nashville, TN 37208
It’s not rocket science. It can be done.
What do you think? Email me at [email protected].
[1] Damon Root, https://reason.com/2025/06/27/supreme-court-rules-6-3-for-trump-limits-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] pfaw.org
[5] Ibid.
[6] Damon Root, op. cit.