ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
The Supreme Court wrapped up its term with a bang today. A few of today's decisions could affect people all over the country, and we'll hear about some of them in other parts of the program. The biggest ruling came in a case testing whether the Constitution guarantees U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S.
But here's the thing. While the judges dodged the question of birthright citizenship, their 6-to-3 decision on ideological lines dramatically limits the power of federal judges on almost any issue. The Trump administration wanted to limit universal injunctions. That's when a federal judge blocks a law or an executive order not just for the specific plaintiffs who brought the case, but for everyone.
So the big story today is not exactly about who is a citizen. It's about how far a lower court judge can go to stop a law or policy that may be unconstitutional. Amanda Frost studies immigration and citizenship law at the University of Virginia. Welcome back.
AMANDA FROST: Thank you for having me.
SHAPIRO: So the court has limited universal injunctions. How big a change is this to the role of judges in our system of government?
FROST: Yeah, I think this is momentous. It expands executive branch authority and in turn limits the role of the courts, as well as overwhelming the lower federal courts with lawsuits because now the only way to get relief in cases challenging executive branch policies is for each and every individual to file a lawsuit, unless there's a class action available, which is not a device that's available in every case.
SHAPIRO: So to take the specific example of the birthright citizenship case, three different court injunctions had blocked that executive order. The Supreme Court reduced the scope of all three. Does that mean this can now be enforced in places where no one has challenged it in court, but the executive order cannot be enforced in places where there have been successful lawsuits? Like, how does this actually work?
FROST: The answer is likely yes. And I'll just point out, every district court to address this question of the constitutionality and legality of the executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship held that it was blatantly unconstitutional, which is the language of one judge. But nonetheless, as a result of this Supreme Court ruling, if the individual involved didn't file a lawsuit and lives in a state that didn't sue, it's quite possible that their child born within 30 days of this ruling or after 30 days of this ruling would not be a citizen, or at least they'd have to demonstrate their own citizenship and immigration status before their child would be recognized as a citizen. So this ruling is momentous both in this individual case and issue involving birthright citizenship but in addition for all of the lawsuits challenging executive branch policies under this president and any future president.
SHAPIRO: And so taking the wide-angle view, beyond birthright citizenship, does this mean that any president can issue an executive order that is blatantly unconstitutional, hypothetically speaking, on guns or climate or immigration or literally anything, and until the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in on it, the executive order will remain in effect?
FROST: Yes, I mean, that's a good example. Maybe a future president would say, everyone has to turn in their handguns, no one can have a gun - which would clearly violate the Second Amendment and the court's jurisprudence. And yet, unless and until the Supreme Court weighs in, that executive order could apply to everyone who didn't file a lawsuit. I will say, there's one caveat to that, which is individual states have sued to challenge the birthright citizenship policy. And in the Supreme Court decision today, the court did send it back to the lower courts and said, you need to determine the scope of the injunction needed to provide relief to these individual states. And that's because it's difficult to craft relief for a state that doesn't acknowledge that it needs to apply beyond individuals born within that state and, of course, could apply to anyone who moves around this country freely, as we all have a right to do.
SHAPIRO: Even though this decision was split on ideological lines, judges across the ideological spectrum have criticized nationwide injunctions. So what reason did the majority give for limiting them so dramatically?
FROST: Yes, and I will just say that I think nationwide injunctions can be overused and aren't appropriate in every case, as many judges have said, as many academics have said as well, who studied this issue, including myself. But the way the court decided this case is to say that it's likely beyond the authority of the lower courts to do this. And that really takes off the table universal injunctions. However, injunctive relief can be provided, still, that's broad enough to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, which could mean extending beyond individual plaintiffs in some cases. We'll have to see how this plays out.
SHAPIRO: You said that this could lead to hundreds or thousands of lawsuits on any given issue. Is the court system ready for that?
FROST: No. Short answer, no, and they're already overwhelmed. The system is under enormous stress as it is, and now they look to be flooded with lawsuits. You know, anyone who's expecting a child over the next year, you know, 30 days from now or beyond, will have to demonstrate their status for their child to be recognized as a citizen unless they are somehow included within the relief given to individual plaintiffs or states.
SHAPIRO: Amanda Frost is a professor at the University of Virginia Law School. Thank you.
FROST: You're welcome.
SHAPIRO: And after we recorded that conversation, the ACLU and other groups filed a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging the executive order on birthright citizenship on behalf of all families in the U.S. subject to the order. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
