On Thursday, conservative law professor Jonathan Turley made the case that the Trump administration is standing on solid legal ground in the latest Supreme Court case challenging birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. I mean, this should be a no-brainer. It’s astounding this ever became a thing.
Why in the world were anchor babies ever allowed? It’s rewarding people for breaking our immigration laws. When someone robs a bank, you don’t let them keep the money. Common sense is not so common anymore.
Oral arguments for the SCOTUS case opened with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointing out that the current administration’s operation to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants is being impaired due to the 40 injunctions across the nation, most of them issued by leftist judges who are acting as activists, arguing they shouldn’t have authority to pause deportations outside of their immediate districts.
“Of particular concern for Sauer is the use of ‘forum-shopping’ by anti-deportation legal advocates who aim to win nationwide injunctions by filing in courts where left-leaning judges are most likely sympathetic to their cause,” Trending Politics News said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opened the court’s questioning by challenging Sauer to explain why the Supreme Court should hold the power of nationwide injunctions if district courts saw theirs stripped, arguing such decisions could only reach the high court if a lower court’s ruling led to a national and novel legal saga.
Turley spent the day listening to questions by Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, the “three to watch most closely” to predict which way the court will rule. In a blog post, the George Washington University Law School professor wrote how shrewd it was for the Trump administration to tailor its legal argument to the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions rather than directly going after birthright citizenship.
A fiery conversation sparked among the justices concerning relevant court precedent, during which Roberts delivered a stern rebuke to Sotomayor for interrupting him. For once, this guy is giving off sigma vibes. Gen Z will know what that means. Sorry, boomers. Have to reach that young audience.
“Can I hear the rest of his answer?” he asked his fellow member of the bench.
“…Sotomayor is unyielding even to the interjections of the Chief Justice (I think, it was Roberts who asked to hear him respond). Roberts then spoke over Sotomayor to ask a question…” Turley said in commentary on the proceeding posted to X.
Just after noon, the oral arguments concluded. Turley then said there was “far more heat than light,” in the discussion that was had, going on to add that predicting how the court will ultimately rule on the issue is difficult.
“…Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh seemed strongly in favor of the Administration. Roberts also made repeated points that seemed to support some of the arguments of the Administration, though it was not clear how he would vote…” he explained. “…On the left, Kagan repeatedly strived to distinguish this case from her earlier objections to universal injunctions under the Biden Administration. She seemed solidly with Sotomayor and Jackson…”
“…That leaves Gorsuch and Barrett. Gorsuch has previously expressed criticism of universal injunctions but asked probing questions on both sides. Barrett seemed more accommodating in seeking a way to uphold universal injunctions…” he continued.
“…In other words, this could be a nail-biter. I think that the Administration still has an advantage in curtailing universal injunctions. However, I did not come away with the sense of a lock with a majority, particularly given Barrett’s questions. I am also unsure how Roberts and Gorsuch will play out on the details. Fortunately, we will likely know within a couple of weeks,” his commentary concluded.
"*" indicates required fields
