The Supreme Court heard arguments this week over whether lower courts should retain the power to impose sweeping nationwide injunctions that halt President Donald Trump’s reform agenda—particularly his efforts to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
The nine justices showed little consensus as government lawyers urged restraint on lower courts, warning that such injunctions freeze political and legal debate.
Breaking News. Spirit-Filled Stories. Subscribe to Charisma on YouTube now!
Solicitor General John Sauer argued that one federal judge should not have the authority to block national policy for the entire country. Instead, Sauer emphasized that limiting injunctions to individual plaintiffs would allow legal and public debates to evolve—a process he described as essential to a functioning republic.
“Percolation of novel, sensitive constitutional issues is a merit of our system,” he said.
The Biden-era explosion in nationwide injunctions—over 40 since January alone—has largely come from Democrat-appointed judges attempting to obstruct Trump’s lawful executive orders, including reforms to immigration enforcement. Trump’s attempt to end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants has been blocked by three separate appeals courts.
Justice Clarence Thomas voiced support for limiting national injunctions, noting that such broad rulings only emerged in the 1960s and the country had previously functioned without them.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns over implementation, asking how states and hospitals would handle legal uncertainty around newborns’ status. Sauer responded that these issues could be resolved through coordinated planning as the issue moved through the courts.
Opponents of limiting injunctions, including lawyers representing 22 Democrat-led states, claimed it would create legal chaos.
Join Charisma Magazine Online to follow everything the Holy Spirit is doing around the world!
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned it might force individuals to “catch” the government in court to protect their rights. Sauer countered that class-action lawsuits could address such concerns without undermining the judiciary’s structure.
The Court may seek a compromise, possibly issuing narrower guidance or requesting further briefing before deciding. The broader debate over national injunctions remains pivotal to how presidents can govern—and how effectively courts can limit executive power in the future.
This article originally appeared on American Faith, and is reposted with permission.
