Politics
JUST IN: Turley Gives Trump Optimistic Update In Critical SCOTUS Case
Conservative law professor Jonathan Turley argued on Thursday that the Trump administration is on solid legal footing in its latest U.S. Supreme Court case challenging birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Oral arguments opened with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stating that the ability of the administration to carry out its mass deportation program has been hamstrung by 40 nationwide injunctions, often issued by liberal district judges who he argued should not have the authority to pause deportations outside of their immediate districts.
Of particular concern for Sauer is the use of “forum-shopping” by anti-deportation legal advocates who aim to win nationwide injunctions by filing in courts where left-leaning judges are most likely sympathetic to their cause.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened the court’s questioning by challenging Sauer to explain why the Supreme Court should hold the power of nationwide injunctions if district courts saw theirs stripped, arguing such decisions could only reach the high court if a lower court’s ruling led to a national and novel legal saga.
Turley spent the day listening to questions by Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, the “three to watch most closely” to predict which way the court will rule. In a blog post, the George Washington University Law School professor wrote how shrewd it was for the Trump administration to tailor its legal argument to the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions rather than directly going after birthright citizenship.
During a heated discussion among the justices about relevant court precedent, Roberts rebuked Sotomayor for interrupting him.
“Can I hear the rest of his answer?” he sternly asked his liberal colleague.
“…Sotomayor is unyielding even to the interjections of the Chief Justice (I think, it was Roberts who asked to hear him respond). Roberts then spoke over Sotomayor to ask a question…” Turley wrote on X in a blow-by-blow summary.
Oral arguments in the case wrapped up shortly after noon; Turley wrote there was “far more heat than light” illuminating the discussion, adding that it will be difficult to predict how the court comes down on this issue.
“…Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh seemed strongly in favor of the Administration. Roberts also made repeated points that seemed to support some of the arguments of the Administration, though it was not clear how he would vote…” he said. “…On the left, Kagan repeatedly strived to distinguish this case from her earlier objections to universal injunctions under the Biden Administration. She seemed solidly with Sotomayor and Jackson…”
“…That leaves Gorsuch and Barrett. Gorsuch has previously expressed criticism of universal injunctions but asked probing questions on both sides. Barrett seemed more accommodating in seeking a way to uphold universal injunctions…
“…In other words, this could be a nail-biter. I think that the Administration still has an advantage in curtailing universal injunctions. However, I did not come away with the sense of a lock with a majority, particularly given Barrett’s questions. I am also unsure how Roberts and Gorsuch will play out on the details. Fortunately, we will likely know within a couple of weeks.”
