In recent times, a typical pattern has emerged in American politics where decisions by President Donald Trump are countered by lower court judges, appellate panels refuse to put a stop to these orders while the case is ongoing, and the Department of Justice takes the matter to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. Since the commencement of Trump’s second term, the administration lawyers have set a precedent by asking for urgent intervention from the Supreme Court almost every week. However, the intention is not to arrive at a conclusive judgment, but rather to determine the boundaries of proceedings while the case is being heard in the courts. In the instances where the Supreme Court has issued orders, the Trump administration has seen more victories than losses.
One notable victory for the Trump administration was the Supreme Court granting permission to implement a ban imposed by the Republican president on active military service by individuals identifying as transgender. On the other hand, the administration encountered a significant loss when it was forbidden to use an 18th-century wartime legislation — the Alien Enemies Act, for deporting supposed gang participants from Venezuela to a infamous jail in El Salvador. The court received the latest emergency filing toward the end of May.
The new filing originated from an instance where a judge admonished the administration over deportations to South Sudan. The appeal by the Trump administration seeks the supreme court’s intervention to suspend an order issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, located in Boston. The White House, according to the discovery by Murphy, disregarded a preceding order with a deportation flight set for the African nation, encompassing individuals from distinct nations who had been charged with crimes on American soil.
Judge Murphy argued that these immigrants should be given a legitimate opportunity to express any apprehensions about being sent to a potentially dangerous environment. The leading Supreme Court attorney for the Trump administration appealed for an immediate high court order that would enable deportations to third-world countries to kickstart again. Judge Murphy previously has put a halt on efforts to deport migrants who do not have the option to return to their home countries.
Judge Murphy’s ruling suggested that identifying nations willing to accept these individuals is a ‘sensitive diplomatic task’. The court’s intervention has resulted in a weighty hurdle for the deportations, according to him. The legal representatives for the defended have been given till the following Wednesday to provide their response.
Another court matter involves the Department of Government Efficiency that is challenging a lawsuit striving to compel it to publicly reveal information related to its operations. A lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics insists that the Department, which has been crucial to President Trump’s efforts to reshape the government, is accountable under the Freedom of Information Act as a federal entity. The group argues that the Department ‘exercises remarkably expansive power’, with minimal transparency concerning its activities.
However, according to the administration, the Department is merely a presidential advisory organization exempt from FOIA disclosures. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper has suggested that its role is not merely advisory but also significantly aids in closing the U.S. Agency for International Development and in eliminating billions of government contracts. In the judge’s opinion, the court has been causing disruptions to its operations and meddling with decisions that should ideally reside with the executive branch.
The Supreme Court justices could intervene anytime. President Trump has been working on modifying citizenship rules that have been well-established for over a century. Several judges rapidly obstructed an executive order issued by President Trump on his first day in office. The order aimed at denying citizenship to children born to people residing in the U.S. illegally or temporarily, was met with opposition.
The Trump administration challenged three court orders that prevent these changes from being instated across the country. Earlier in May, the justices took an unusual step by hearing the arguments in this emergency appeal. The final outcome is still uncertain, but it appears that the court is committed to maintaining the status quo while searching for a means to reduce the nation-wide court orders.
There is ongoing discussion among some justices to come up with a different legal process, potentially a class-action lawsuit, which would essentially achieve the same effect intended by the nationwide injunctions that are currently obstructing President Trump’s citizenship order. These nationwide injunctions have become an increasingly significant form of restraint against President Trump’s efforts to overhaul the government while also being a source of ongoing frustration for the president and his Republican allies.
Ever since Trump began his second term in the office in January, judges across the country have issued 40 such nationwide injunctions. While they have served as a tool for checking the President’s agenda, they have also amplified the tensions and political divide in the country.