Jonathan Turley speaks at a hearing

Turley said, “The interesting thing so far is Justice Kagan, because she sort of painted herself in a corner in her interview at Northwestern Law School during the Biden Administration when she said, you know, these injunctions really are crazy.” He added, “Today she was suggesting well, if we think this order is clearly unconstitutional, does that change the dynamic for us? So, it seemed like she is trying to reframe it a bit, in terms of how they would approach this.”

Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch

Justice Elena Kagan argued that it is problematic for one judge to halt a policy for an extended period while legal disputes unfold. Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that "universal" injunctions require examination if federal courts continue issuing them. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch expressed concerns about the routine issuance of these injunctions, noting that they disrupt the legal process and create confusion.

Jonathan Turley testifies

Turley said, “There is this widening gap between the judiciary, both state and federal, and the Trump administration.” He added, “And I think it’s one of the reasons why the Supreme Court took the injunction case in this irregular way. This is a pretty rare occasion for them to accept an oral argument in a case like this. I think they do want to bring clarity. But if the oral argument in the Supreme Court is any indication, there is more heat than light so far.”

John Roberts and Elena Kagan

Kagan said, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh

Thomas wrote, “Universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.” He added, “If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”

Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has suggested that the court might need to review the implications of allowing district courts to enjoin laws against nonparties. Kavanaugh wrote, “The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against nonparties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices

Proponents have asserted that nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship ensure uniformity in citizenship determinations. They contend that recognizing a child's U.S. citizenship should not depend on birthplace to maintain national cohesion.