The Supreme Court’s ruling in June represents another damaging blow to the system of checks and balances established by our founding fathers. In its 6-3 decision in Trump v. Casa, the court ruled that federal courts do not have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions, which are court orders that halt the enforcement of federal policy across the entire country.
In the case of Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court reviewed whether federal courts had the power to stop an executive order from taking effect nationwide. The order in question, Executive Order 14160, challenged the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship. A lower court issued an injunction to block it, arguing about the constitutionality of the order. The Supreme Court countered the injunction by ruling that such actions did, in fact, surpass the powers given to the courts by Congress.
Historically, universal injunctions were very rare until the 1960s. Courts issued an average of only 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations, and 2.5 per year against the Obama administration. In recent years, however, the use of injunctions has dramatically increased as political fragmentation has developed. Within the first year of the first Trump administration, there were 20 injunctions against his executive orders alone. During Joe Biden’s presidency, 14 universal injunctions were used, many of them against measures meant to help the U.S. recover after the COVID-19 pandemic. While injunctions were once rare, their rapid increase over the last 20 years shows a trend of increased tensions not only between the courts and the executive branch, but between the two political parties.
Injunctions have both their pros and cons; however, the Supreme Court is tying the hands of the lower courts at a time when they are trying to combat the aggressive flood of executive orders from the president.
Now these orders can go into effect immediately, even if they are later ruled unconstitutional. But by that time, the damage may already be done. This also leads to legal fragmentation. Each citizen can live in 50 different versions of America. By stating that each state can sue the executive branch and potentially have that law be null and void in that particular state, it means that each and every state will have a different version of federal law. In New Jersey, birthright citizenship may still be in effect, but a few states over, and suddenly, you are not a U.S. citizen.
This decision by the Supreme Court has broad implications for the United States. By essentially removing the judiciary’s ability to quickly halt potentially harmful and unconstitutional acts, the court has fundamentally shifted power toward the presidency, upsetting the delicate balance of power that has existed between the three branches of government for centuries. Over the last few months, we have seen major overreach by the executive branch, such as the mass firings of government officials and the restriction of journalists in the White House.
These overreaches of power, coupled with the erosion of checks to rein in the executive branch, mean dangerous things for our democracy. We have already seen some of these consequences, with the unrestricted and unethical deportation of undocumented immigrants, vast firings of federal officials and the use of the judicial system to publicly shame and prosecute Trump’s personal enemies. By limiting the courts’ power in the system of checks and balances, the Supreme Court has not only changed the law but also changed the stability of American democracy.
