“ Explosive ”: the United States Supreme Court blows the power of Trump | Short news

Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has taken a hard blow for those who dispute the use of presidential power by Donald Trump, in what the president and his allies have greeted as a major victory.

On Friday, in its decision, the panel of nine members said whether the courts could block an executive decree on the citizenship of the right of birth.

The court did not rule directly on the president orderThis would limit citizenship for children born in the United States according to the immigration status of their parents.

But in a decision of six to three, the conservative supermajure of the Court seriously slowed down the capacity of judges to issue so -called universal injunctions: general prohibitions on presidential actions resulting from legal challenges.

The court’s decision, according to Allen Orr, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (Aila), is simply “explosive”.

“For lawyers and people who practice law, it is a radical change in relation to the way in which we have brought the courts in the past,” he told Al Jazeera. “This again weakens the judiciary, as a balance (against the executive power).”

Friday’s decision raises the national block on Trump’s decree which seeks to redefine citizenship of the right of birth, which generally allows people born on American soil to be recognized as American citizens.

However, Trump’s order, signed only a few hours after taking office for a second term on January 20, would restrict citizenship for people born of undocumented parents in the United States.

This “opens the door to the partial application” of the order of Trump, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the many groups that have challenged the attempted policy.

That is to say at least until the Supreme Court makes a decision on the question of whether the citizenship of the right of birth is indeed protected by the American Constitution, like the supporters – and the previous ones of the Court – have long maintained.

If no other measure is taken, in theory, the order could be blocked in the handful of states where judges have already issued injunctions linked to at least 10 individual prosecution. But this could come into force in dozens of other states where judges have not issued such an injunction.

The Supreme Court’s decision indicates that Trump’s order will not be enforceable for at least 30 days.

But Leon Fresco – A former deputy deputy deputy prosecutor who supervised immigration to the Ministry of Justice under President Barack Obama – warned that after this 30 -day period, there could be serious consequences for newborns of immigrants.

“If there is no injunction in your jurisdiction which prevents the implementation of the decree and you are born to a parent without status that gives you, then the government could deny you either a passport, if you request a passport or a social security number,” he told Al Jazeera.

Collective appeal challenge

Friday, the decision does not completely remove the possibility that a judge issuing a national injunction to a decree. Legal experts say that it seriously restrics avenues.

Before the decision, groups and individuals could launch a panoply of legal challenges before the federal courts across the country, any one could cause injunctions nationally.

Now, a judge can only make a cover break in response to a collective appeal, which is a complaint carried out in the name of a whole “class” of people. The process is generally more complex, long and expensive.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court, explained in Fresco, also said that a single collective recourse on a national scale can represent a specific challenge.

“There would not be this capacity, which would occur now, where applicants can deposit cases in five or six different courts, in the hope of ensuring that a judge before one of these courts pronounces a national injunction,” he said.

“With the collective appeal, you will only have the only time to win,” he added. “If you have lost, you should hope that the Court of Appeal has changed it or that the Supreme Court has changed it.”

Collective appeals also have strict requirements for those who can participate. A judge must agree that all complainants continue the same case and that there are no substantial differences in their complaints.

Shortly after Friday’s decision, the applicant, Casa Inc, a defense group for immigration defenders, quickly refilmed his legal dispute against the Citizenship of Citizenship of Rights of Wise of Trump. Now he continues the case as a collective recourse.

The criticisms, on the other hand, targeted the conservative supermajtority of the Supreme Court. Even judge Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal judge of the panel of nine members, criticized her colleagues for having ruled on national injunctions but not on the executive order of Trump, which she qualified in an unconstitutional manner.

“The majority ignores entirely if the decree of the president is constitutional, rather focusing on the question of whether the federal courts have the equitable power of issuing universal injunctions,” wrote Sotomayor.

“However, the illumination of the Patent of the Order reveals the severity of the majority error.”

In the absence of a collective appeal, individuals and groups will be forced to launch their own proceedings to obtain individual reprehe from potentially illegal presidential orders.

Indeed

In an article on the social media platform X, Democratic representative Demme Wasserman Schultz wrote that the decision of the Supreme Court allows Trump to “tear citizenship from the right of birth, forcing individuals to bring heavy prosecutions to recover it”.

Broader implications

But the decision of Friday restricted not only which is protected by an injunction of the given court, but it also influenced the amount of judicial branch of the government can continue to serve as a rampart against the executive power.

Critics of universal injunctions have long accused federal judges of going beyond their authority by blocking the presidential action.

Among those who celebrate Friday’s decision, Senator Chuck Grassley, who led legislation on the issue.

In a press release, he described such injunctions an “unconstitutional affront to the system of checks and the equestrian of our country” which “should be arrested for good”.

Supporters, however, claim that the ability of judges to issue rapid and large -scale breaks on controversial policies is necessary to protect themselves against presidential surpassing.

Many consider Trump as an expansion of presidential powers at a new level during his second term.

Since his return according to a second term, Trump has published 164 decrees, exceeding 162 issued by former President Joe Biden during his entire presidency. This number – for approximately five months – quickly approaches the total of Trump’s first mandate: 220.

Meanwhile, federal judges have published at least 25 national injunctions under Trump’s orders during his first 100 days in power, some of which have taken a break of federal funding, attacks on diversity initiatives and revisions to American immigration systems.

Some of these judicial affairs will probably be redesigned in the light of the last decision, experts said.

In an article on X, Senator Chris Coons, a democrat, warned that the ruling courts “will only humb Trump and his dismantling of our federal government”.

“This will create a patchwork inorer of laws that change depending on who you are or the state in which you are.”

Orr, the former president of the law association, agreed with this evaluation.

“This decision does not strengthen coherence in the United States at a time when people need these standards,” he said. “People do not have time or money to wait for these problems to be solved.”