The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case that could significantly alter the power of federal judges to block presidential actions. While the headline issue—former President Trump’s executive order curbing birthright citizenship—is drawing political fire, the legal focus before the court centers on the growing use of nationwide preliminary injunctions by federal district courts.
On Chicago’s Morning Answer, Dan Proft and guest co-host Jeanne Ives spoke with Mark Miller, senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, about the far-reaching implications of the court’s eventual ruling. The discussion broke down how the case has morphed from a controversial immigration dispute into a potential turning point for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.
Nationwide Injunctions Under the Microscope
At the heart of the case is the question of whether a single federal judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction that halts a president’s executive action for the entire country, not just for the parties involved in a given case. The practice has become increasingly common and controversial in recent years, often used to challenge presidential policies on immigration, student loan forgiveness, environmental regulation, and more.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed hard on the consequences of weakening district court powers, suggesting a future scenario where a president bans gun ownership nationally and no single judge has the authority to stop it. She questioned whether the courts must wait for multiple lawsuits to trickle in while constitutional rights are trampled in the meantime.
Miller acknowledged her concern but said her analogy was “superficial.” He noted that class actions and targeted injunctions can still provide effective relief without requiring sweeping national orders. “The courts can move fast when necessary,” he added, pointing to the Court’s quick turnaround in the 2024 Colorado Trump ballot case.
Birthright Citizenship: A Tough Road Ahead
While the legality of Trump’s 2019 executive order is part of the underlying case, Miller and the hosts agreed that the Supreme Court may avoid directly ruling on it. Miller admitted Trump’s position—redefining the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause to exclude children of illegal immigrants—faces steep legal precedent.
Sotomayor cited multiple cases reinforcing birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Miller countered that these cases didn’t directly address the specific question of jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment, leaving room for debate. He explained that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may not automatically apply to those unlawfully present in the country, though such a claim remains legally unsettled.
Still, Miller suggested that this might not be the ideal case to challenge those precedents. “You generally want to push a case like this where all of the case law is on your side,” he said. “Here, not so much.”
Political Ironies and Judicial Consistency
The conversation also highlighted how both sides of the political aisle have reversed positions depending on who is in the White House. Justices like Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett sparred over the dangers of forum shopping—a tactic used by both Democratic and Republican opponents to block executive orders by finding favorable judges.
Justice Clarence Thomas offered a pointed reminder that America functioned for nearly two centuries without nationwide injunctions. “Why do we have to have them now?” he asked.
Miller noted that even Kagan had previously expressed skepticism of the practice. “It will be interesting to see whether she holds to that view in this case,” he said.
Jeanne Ives: So Which Question Will They Answer?
As a non-lawyer, co-host Jeanne Ives asked the key question: Will the court issue a ruling on the legality of Trump’s order or stay focused on the procedural matter of universal injunctions?
Miller responded that the justices are likely to sidestep the birthright citizenship issue, especially since it’s still pending before the Ninth Circuit. “Most of them probably don’t want to get into that question just yet,” he said.
What’s at Stake
If the court limits the reach of federal judges to issue sweeping injunctions, it could restore more deference to the executive branch and reduce the incentive for ideological opponents to shop for friendly venues. But such a ruling would also make it harder for plaintiffs to immediately halt policies they believe violate constitutional rights.
The case represents more than a dispute over immigration or Trump-era orders—it’s a stress test of the checks and balances that define American governance.
A decision is expected later this term.