Supreme Court Redefines Executive Authority (Again) and Greenlights Trump
This day was always coming ...now it's here
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to strip lower courts of their power to issue universal injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The Court left untouched whether the order violates the 14th Amendment, but effectively permits its enforcement in jurisdictions not yet challenged—a tectonic shift in how constitutional rights are defended.
This Really Matters
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent lays bare the consequences:
“By severing constitutional rights from nationwide protection and relegating them to a case‑by‑case basis, the Court creates a rolling window in which presidential actions with potentially unconstitutional consequences remain in force unless—and until—challenged.” cbsnews.com+5supremecourt.gov+5politico.com+5
She warns that this fragmentation undermines the principle that rights apply equally across the country:
“Today the Court shrinks constitutional protection to the size of a single judicial district.”
The stakes aren’t limited to birthright citizenship
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, issued a searing dissent highlighting the broader dangers:
“May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” she asked—and answered: the majority just made that question far harder to answer in the affirmative. reuters.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2apnews.com+2
Jackson concludes starkly:
“The Executive may now flout constitutional limits until every individual, in every jurisdiction, sues.” scrippsnews.com
This isn’t judicial restraint—it’s a re-engineering of constitutional governance. Rights no longer attach nationally; they hinge on filing a lawsuit, in every court, in every district. That’s not a feature of our constitutional system—it’s a bug.
What comes next
Strategic rollouts of executive orders: This decision creates a roadmap for presidents to roll out constitutionally dubious orders, knowing enforcement may spread until litigants intercept them.
Litigation battles decentralize: Instead of one decisive ruling, we face a patchwork of district-level outcomes. Protection becomes a luxury only the organized can access.
Political and judicial response: Congress could step in by curtailing universal injunctions or affirming nationwide relief. Future courts may revisit this fractured model—but the stakes are immediate.
Bottom line: Today’s decision isn't just about birthright citizenship. It reshapes the battlefield on which constitutional rights are defended. The majority has handed the executive a tactical advantage: a presidency unburdened by constitutional constraints—so long as it can wait out lawsuits one by one.
We must recognize the new landscape: our rights now require individual litigation to enforce. That path is costly, uneven, and deeply disruptive of equal protection under the law. The question before us is clear: whether we tolerate a regime where constitutional guarantees depend on filing a lawsuit—or whether we demand a legal framework where rights are real and enforceable, nationwide.
“We must recognize the new landscape: our rights now require individual litigation to enforce. That path is costly, uneven, and deeply disruptive of equal protection under the law. The question before us is clear: whether we tolerate a regime where constitutional guarantees depend on filing a lawsuit—or whether we demand a legal framework where rights are real and enforceable, nationwide.”
Although I agree, I beg to differ on timeframe. The conservative court has been undermining the rule of law since the Bush V Gore decision. Then it gutted most the Civil Rights Act, and with Citizens United and several other rulings, they made corporations people too, and allowed unlimited money to corrupt our election process.
Furthermore, the highest court has been doing the work of the conservative movement in America, as they destroy our rights, by forcing us to suffer a slow, painful death, by a thousand judicial and legislative cuts (red states). All they needed in place was the their “anointed one,” and Trump came to their rescue.
We’ve watch them hand Trump an unconstitutional immunity clause, as well as slow roll two criminal investigations to make sure that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted before the election.
We saw SCOTUS deny Franny Willis the right to prosecute Trump (Atlanta election fraud) because she had an affair with a co-worker; since when is that a conflict of interest? It happens all the time.
We saw a corrupt federal judge (Cannon) dismiss Trump’s document case based on the unconstitutional immunity clause issue by SCOTUS; even though Trump stole our most sensitive and secret documents from the National Archives; refused to acknowledge he had them (lied), refused to give them back, and then forced the FBI to get a subpoena in order to retrieve them.
Since when does a former president get immunity for stealing documents and refusing to give them back? It’s a rhetorical question, no need to answer.
Bottom line: Anyone who thinks this is normal and that SCOTUS isn’t completely in the tank for Trump and under the thumb of Heritage and The Federalist Society is definitely suffering from “normalcy bias,” because this is a deliberate coup by SCOTUS to tip the scales of justice for the religious fascists hell bent on taking over our country, and turning it into a White Nationalist Christian Theocracy.
Moreover, when Biden was president, the same question in lawsuits was asked by Biden’s Solicitor General; for SCOTUS to rule on whether federal judges had the authority on freezing policies across the country.
For four years they refused to even consider the question; kicking the can down the road. And now that their guy is president, within five months they rule in his favor, when for four years all of Biden’s policies were stuck in LIMBO! Seriously?????
Additionally, Barrett had the audacity to claim that people can file class action lawsuits to rectify the problem, except the court has been gutting the ability for individuals to file of class action lawsuits for years:
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013)
Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles (2013)
Just to name a few of the cases.
And finally, what SCOTUS is actually doing is allowing Trump to start deportations of American born toddlers and their families, so it will become normalized and legitimized in the eyes of the people, so when they eventually rule, it won’t come as a shock to anyone. It’s classic shock doctrine!
This court is not the solution, they are the problem and without their nefarious rulings, Trump wouldn’t be president today! And anyone who thinks differently, needs to find a good therapist! IMHO…:)
I've always wondered why a Bible is used at the swearing in of a President-elect. Seems to me it would more appropriate that they place their left hand on a copy of the Constitution and raise their right hand. It's widely known, I believe, that President Trump did not place his left hand on the Bible while being sworn in for his second term (a term, I pray that our country will survive). Using the Constitution instead of the Bible would cement her/his oath of office. Not everyone may follow a faith tradition that is rooted in Judeo-Christian scriptures, but everyone should welcome and be comfortable with and faithful to following the Constitution. The Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive branches shouldn't have a problem with that. If someone does, then we elected or confirmed the wrong person. My two cents for what it's worth.