In a ruling on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court set restrictions on lower courts, which could potentially affect the numerous legal proceedings that have halted policies proposed by the Trump Administration. The high court limited the power of federal judges in issuing nationwide injunctions, which have blocked several policies of former President Donald Trump, such as the denial of citizenship to U.S.-born children of individuals in the country temporarily or unlawfully. While the ruling was made in the context of a lawsuit challenging this order, the Supreme Court did not make it clear if the limitations on birthright citizenship may be enacted in certain areas.
Before this decision, from the inception of the new administration up until mid-May, approximately 40 nationwide injunctions have been sanctioned by judges against the White House. These orders covered various topics, spanning federal funding, election protocols, and matters related to diversity and fairness. Lawyers involved in these cases have committed to continue their legal battle, stressing that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not close all doors and potential paths to nationwide action still exist.
On the 13th of June, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts put a halt to Trump’s attempts to reconfigure the national electoral system. An executive command by Trump in March aimed to enforce a documentation of citizenship requirement for federal election voter registration, limit accepted votes to only those received by Election Day via mail and contingent federal election grant support on states adhering to the new deadline for ballots. One of the challengers in this case was the state of California.
Concerning the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the office of California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, stated in an email that the potential effects are currently being evaluated on all state litigation. Previously, in April, a U.S. District Judge in California had prevented the federal administration from stopping the funding for legal representation of migrant children who arrive unaccompanied. The government contested this injuction.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco justified blocking the administration’s plan by arguing the impossibility of limiting the injunction by geography or party. According to her, the need for a nationwide injunction stemmed from the fact that only one contract existed for the service in question, which applied to the provision of legal services throughout America.
Adina Appelbaum, the plaintiffs’ attorney and program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, expressed confidence that the Supreme Court’s ruling will not significantly impact her case. Despite her optimism, she voiced criticism against the high court, stating that they ‘abandoned their duty to defend the people, including immigrants.’
In February, a federal ruling largely stopped grand executive orders aiming to terminate government support for programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore approved a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or modifying federal contracts related to equity. This decision was later temporarily stalled by an appeal court.
Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a group involved in the case, expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision. She portrayed it as another hurdle in seeking relief in court, despite acknowledging its limited scope and acknowledging that some orders against the Trump administration could still hold.
Another significant case in February saw the administration being restrained from withholding federal funding from medical facilities offering gender-affirming care to patients under 19 years of age. U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland cited the nationwide injunction as necessary to avoid ‘significant confusion’ from an uneven approach to such funding.
Judge Hurson elaborated that confusion would stem from a situation where federal agencies are allowed to condition funding based on an institution’s practices, while others blindly continue to receive conditional funding. The calling for a nationwide injunction was seen as an appropriate response to this.
Much of the legal proceedings concerning minors and transgender health care have been on hold, pending the Supreme Court’s opinion on related matters. The high court later upheld a Tennessee law that prohibited certain medical treatments for transgender youth, causing some to raise concerns about the wider implications of their decision.
One of the lawyers involved, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling. While he recognized the potential severity of the verdict, he stated that the high court appeared to have conceded that broad and systematic legal relief is sometimes necessary.
In a recent action in May, a judge in Rhode Island halted an executive order intending to dismantle federal agencies providing support to libraries, museums, minority businesses, and parties in labor disputes. The decision was later challenged by the administration. Rhode Island featured as a plaintiff in this legal battle.
Rhode Island’s Attorney General, Peter F. Neronha, remarked on the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday. He pledged to persistently explore every legal opportunity to safeguard American citizens from what he labelled as ‘the increasingly detrimental whims of this President.’
The post Supreme Court Restriction Shifts the Balance in Trump Administration’s Lawsuits appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
