Clarence Thomas Sends a Nukes Into the Left’s National Injunctions

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA. The core of the case is about President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate “birth right” citizenship, which was put on hold by a federal judge with a national injunction. 

“On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Solicitor General John Sauer argued in his opening statement to the Court. 

“Multiple district courts promptly issued nationwide or universal injunctions blocking this order, and a cascade of such universal injunctions followed. Since January 20, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” he continued. “Universal injunctions exceed the  judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the  traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems…they disrupt the Constitution’s careful balancing of the separation of powers.”

Since taking office, activist judges have issued more national injunctions against Trump’s orders than any other American president in history. 

During oral arguments Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks at the Court, asked a historical question that exposes the use of national injunctions as utterly ridiculous. 

“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked Sauer. 

“Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s, it exploded in 2007,” Sauer replied. 

Meanwhile, liberal Justice Elena Kagan has blasted national injunctions in the past. In 2022, Kagan argued it’s absurd for a single judge to stop the agenda of an elected president and the executive branch. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA. The core of the case is about President Donald Trump’s executive order to eliminate “birth right” citizenship, which was put on hold by a federal judge with a national injunction. 

“On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Solicitor General John Sauer argued in his opening statement to the Court. 

“Multiple district courts promptly issued nationwide or universal injunctions blocking this order, and a cascade of such universal injunctions followed. Since January 20, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations,” he continued. “Universal injunctions exceed the  judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgress the  traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems…they disrupt the Constitution’s careful balancing of the separation of powers.”

Since taking office, activist judges have issued more national injunctions against Trump’s orders than any other American president in history. 

During oral arguments Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks at the Court, asked a historical question that exposes the use of national injunctions as utterly ridiculous. 

“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked Sauer. 

“Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s, it exploded in 2007,” Sauer replied. 

Meanwhile, liberal Justice Elena Kagan has blasted national injunctions in the past. In 2022, Kagan argued it’s absurd for a single judge to stop the agenda of an elected president and the executive branch.