Lower-court judges have no business setting the law of the land

Los Angeles Times - May 16th, 2025

On Thursday, the Supreme Court engaged in oral arguments in Trump vs. CASA Inc., a case rooted in President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. However, the focus shifted from citizenship to a critical procedural matter: whether federal judges can issue nationwide injunctions. The debate centered on the extent of judicial power, questioning if lower courts can halt laws or executive actions beyond their jurisdiction. Scholars argue that federal courts should only bind the named parties involved in a lawsuit, aligning with constitutional principles that uphold self-governance and limited judicial reach.

This case highlights broader constitutional implications, challenging the modern practice of nationwide injunctions which some view as overreach. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, play pivotal roles in this decision, which could redefine judicial authority. A ruling against nationwide injunctions would signify a victory not just for Trump but for constitutional integrity and democratic governance, emphasizing that Americans should govern themselves rather than be subject to judicial supremacy. The outcome could influence how federal courts balance power and self-governance, maintaining the founders' vision of a limited judiciary.

Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship 14th Amendment Constitutional Law John Roberts Amy Coney Barrett Nationwide Injunctions Brett Kavanaugh Jonathan Mitchell Judicial Power Trump Vs. Casa Inc. Will Baude Samuel L. Bray

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively communicates the complexities of the Supreme Court case Trump vs. CASA Inc., focusing on the procedural issue of nationwide injunctions. It presents a clear and well-structured argument against the practice, drawing on historical and constitutional principles. However, the article's strong stance and lack of balanced perspectives limit its overall objectivity. While it provides valuable insights into one side of the debate, the absence of counterarguments and contemporary sources from the ongoing case slightly diminishes its credibility. Despite these limitations, the article remains timely and relevant, engaging readers interested in legal and constitutional issues. Its potential impact on public opinion is notable, as it challenges readers to consider the broader implications of judicial power and self-governance.

Accuracy

The article accurately presents the central issue of the Supreme Court case Trump vs. CASA Inc., focusing on the debate over nationwide injunctions rather than the substantive issue of birthright citizenship. The references to constitutional provisions and legal principles, such as the role of Article III and the historical context of Marbury vs. Madison, are generally accurate. However, the article's assertion that there is a 'straightforward answer' to the question of nationwide injunctions, suggesting that lower courts definitively lack this power, oversimplifies a complex legal debate. This claim lacks nuance and does not adequately represent the ongoing legal discourse surrounding this issue.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a single perspective, advocating against the use of nationwide injunctions and emphasizing judicial restraint. It draws heavily from specific legal scholars who share this viewpoint, such as Will Baude and Jonathan Mitchell, without presenting counterarguments from those who might support broader judicial powers. This one-sided presentation limits the article's balance, as it does not adequately explore the rationale or benefits of nationwide injunctions from the perspective of their proponents.

Clarity

The article is clearly written, with a logical structure that guides the reader through the argument against nationwide injunctions. The language is precise and accessible, making complex legal concepts understandable to a general audience. However, the tone is somewhat assertive, which may detract from perceived neutrality. Overall, the clarity of presentation aids in comprehension, even if the article's stance is strongly expressed.

Source quality

The article cites reputable legal scholars and historical figures, such as Chief Justice John Marshall and President Lincoln, which lends credibility to its arguments. However, it lacks direct references or quotes from the ongoing Supreme Court case or current legal experts involved in the case. The reliance on past scholarly articles without contemporary viewpoints or direct sources from the case itself slightly diminishes the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context for its arguments, referencing historical and constitutional principles. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology behind its claims, particularly the assertion that nationwide injunctions are inherently unconstitutional. The article does not disclose any potential biases or conflicts of interest, nor does it sufficiently explain the basis for its interpretations of legal principles.