Since his second inauguration in January, President Donald Trump has taken an unprecedented approach to executive orders, issuing over 160 directive actions concerning the federal government without requiring legislative approval from Congress. This method of governance isn’t new to the United States, as all presidents—from George Washington to the current administration—have utilized executive orders. However, President Trump’s rate of issuing these orders has sparked various controversies, particularly surrounding executive order 14160.
Executive order 14160, signed on January 20, aims to redefine the principle of birthright citizenship established under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The executive order seeks to restrict this principle, specifically targeting children born in the US to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.
This executive action has been met with significant legal challenges. Various district courts issued universal injunctions, effectively blocking President Trump’s order, citing its conflict with constitutional provisions. In response, the Trump administration brought the case to the Supreme Court, known as Trump v Casa, arguing that district judges should not possess the power to issue extensive injunctions that limit presidential authority.
On June 27, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of the Trump administration, asserting that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” Although the Supreme Court stopped short of outright banning universal injunctions, it limited the courts’ ability to broadly block presidential executive orders.
The ruling did not determine the constitutionality of executive order 14160 itself, leaving the issue of birthright citizenship unresolved. Individuals affected by the executive order retain the option to pursue personal lawsuits, and class action suits may also arise as groups affected by the order seek legal redress. The New York Times has indicated that plaintiffs are preparing to refile their lawsuits to challenge executive order 14160.
The ruling raises deeper concerns regarding the role of the Supreme Court. The nine justices, nominated by the president, inherently carry a political perspective into their decision-making. Currently, the Court comprises six conservative justices and three liberal justices, with three of the conservative justices having been appointed by President Trump during his first term.
In Trump v Casa, the decision followed distinct ideological lines, with the conservative justices forming the majority and the liberal justices dissenting. This ideological split was anticipated, yet it underscores critical questions about the constitutional role of courts in maintaining checks on government power.
In democracies, the principle that power must be exercised according to the law is foundational. Courts serve as a critical check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that actions taken by the government do not exceed their legal limits. Past judicial precedents highlight the courts’ role in reviewing government actions, with landmark cases such as Marbury v Madison establishing the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
Similarly, in the UK, the Supreme Court’s judgment in R(Miller) v Prime Minister reaffirmed the courts’ vital role in acting as a check on executive power. The balancing act that courts must navigate— between not interfering in governmental policy and ensuring lawful governance—was central to the Court’s majority opinion in Trump v Casa.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett articulated this view, indicating that the use of universal injunctions by district courts represented judicial overreach. She argued that federal judges overstepped their boundaries by attempting to prevent the universal implementation of President Trump’s executive order.
In contrast, the three dissenting justices highlighted that the majority ruling risks undermining the rule of law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the decision in Trump v Casa “cannot coexist with the rule of law.” Essentially, the dissent observed that the ruling could impede lower court judges’ ability to challenge executive actions, enabling the executive branch to operate with fewer constraints.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for the balance of judicial and executive powers in the United States. While it is essential for courts to check government overreach, the judgment suggests that the Trump administration may now have increased latitude to act without judicial obstruction.
Additionally, the issue of judicial independence raises concerns, especially considering that justices are nominated by political leaders. As noted in the ideological divisions seen in Trump v Casa, questions about the integrity of the Supreme Court arise when justices are perceived to prioritize ideology over legal principles. This dynamic can potentially erode public faith in the judiciary, a body traditionally viewed as a protector against governmental abuses of power.
In conclusion, the tension highlighted in Trump v Casa represents a critical moment for the judiciary in the United States. While the necessity for clear boundaries between governmental branches is evident, the recent ruling brings to light the precarious state of checks and balances in a nation that relies heavily on judicial autonomy to safeguard democratic principles. The ongoing legal battles surrounding executive order 14160 will not only determine the future of birthright citizenship but will also influence the broader discourse surrounding the scope of executive power and the role of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional governance.
image source from：theconversation
