Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too,” the Supreme Court declared last week in holding several lower court judges erred in entering nationwide injunctions in the lawsuits challenging Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The Supreme Court’s Friday decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. represents the high court’s most recent check on what it branded an “imperial judiciary.” Yet, there appears no end in sight to the lower courts’ entry of lawless injunctions against the Trump Administration.
The Supreme Court — or more specifically, Chief Justice John Roberts — holds much blame for enabling this coup by court. Early on during the second Trump Administration, when single district court judges began crowning themselves Kings (or Queens) of the Constitution, rather than forcefully halt the lawlessness of the lower courts, Justice Roberts led the high court in providing gentle corrections.
Consider, for instance, the injunction entered Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. In that case, several American businesses and nonprofits which received grants from the State Department and USAID sued the Trump Administration, claiming the temporary pause of funding was unlawful. A district court judge entered an injunction ordering the Trump Administration to halt its pause. Then, when payments didn’t restart fast enough for the judge’s liking, he ordered the government to pay out approximately $2 billion in taxpayer funds within 36 hours.
The Trump Administration sought a stay from the Supreme Court, arguing the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay grants. Chief Justice Roberts entered an administrative stay, but then after the 36-hour deadline to pay the grants expired, rather than make clear there was no jurisdiction, the Court noted that since the deadline had passed, there was no need to address the challenged order. The Supreme Court, however, also told the lower court “to clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines” — an implicit rebuke of its earlier injunction.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member