Intellectual consistency and politics go hand in hand like bananas and pizza. However, particular attention should be paid to how Democrats responded to the Supreme Court’s decision on judicial authority last week.
The justices reduced the power of lone federal judges to issue national injunctions that impede the executive branch’s capacity to enforce laws or regulations in a 6-3 decision last Friday. For a considerable portion of American history, the technique was virtually unknown; nonetheless, it became widely accepted in the 1960s.
However, the number of these edicts has increased recently as both Democrats and Republicans have asked justices to hold an opposition party president accountable. In this regard, Democrats have been particularly combative with President Donald Trump. The playbook is described by the Wall Street Journal: Locate plaintiffs who are able to allege harm, file a lawsuit in a jurisdiction that is favorable, and make the case that a decision that has national applicability is necessary to preserve order.
Trump’s birthright citizenship decree was at the center of the dispute. A federal judge decided in favor of the blue states’ attorneys general who filed a lawsuit to stop the decree. The Supreme Court recognized that global injunctions might be acceptable in some situations, but it did not examine whether the president’s decree was lawful. However, the decision said that most injunctions only apply within the court’s jurisdiction and may only protect the plaintiff in question.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, saying that when a court finds that the executive branch has violated the law, the court should not go beyond its authority.
Some Democrats blasted the court, while many observers depicted the ruling as a win for Trump. However, the decision is impartial in terms of ideology and will be applicable in cases where a Democrat holds the White House and Republicans are in the minority. Many Democratic critics are actually debating themselves.
Formerly opposed to countrywide injunctions, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NYC, stated in April 2024 that right-wing activists are using the current structure of the judiciary to get around the legislative process and override the will of the American people.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that same month that activist litigants shouldn’t have the authority to personally select judges to establish national policy.
In a 2022 speech to law students at Northwestern University, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated that it simply cannot be right for a single district judge to halt a national policy in its tracks and keep it that way for the years it takes for it to go through the proper procedures.
On Friday, Justice Kagan took the side of the minority. Maybe she reconsidered the arguments. Or maybe the person in the Oval Office determines her constitutional values.
Review-Journal/Tribune News Service of Las Vegas
