Synopsis: May 15, 2025, Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Main Issue: In light of President Trump’s executive order attempting to nullify birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the validity of nationwide (or universal) injunctions, which are court rulings that prohibit federal government actions statewide.

14th amendment
Key Trade:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor often interrupted U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer during her hostile interrogation. She said that four Supreme Court precedents were broken by the Trump order.
Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in to request that Sauer be allowed to finish his answer, signaling concern over decorum and balance during arguments.
The Trump Administration’s Opinion:
Only in extraordinary situations should the Supreme Court have the authority to issue worldwide injunctions; federal courts shouldn’t have this authority.
Such injunctions are characterized as an abuse of judicial power that overwhelms the administration with legal obstacles and threatens the separation of powers outlined in the constitution.
Importance:
The ruling might establish a significant precedent regarding the boundaries of judicial authority.
Trump’s policies have been the subject of over 310 lawsuits in less than five months of his second term, thus the outcome has a significant impact.
The Trump Administration’s Opinion:
Only in extraordinary situations should the Supreme Court have the authority to issue worldwide injunctions; federal courts shouldn’t have this authority.
Such injunctions are characterized as an abuse of judicial power that overwhelms the administration with legal obstacles and threatens the separation of powers outlined in the constitution.
Importance:
The ruling might establish a significant precedent regarding the boundaries of judicial authority.
Trump’s policies have been the subject of over 310 lawsuits in less than five months of his second term, thus the outcome has a significant impact.
Combined Cases:
CASA v. Trump
State of Washington v. Trump
New Jersey v. Trump
Analysis:
Ideology & Judicial Decorum: The conflict between Roberts and Sotomayor is a reflection of the Court’s continuous struggle between attempts to uphold procedural order and more forceful liberal viewpoints.
The coverage, particularly from Fox News, portrays Sotomayor’s actions as disruptive and politicized, which is a common criticism from conservative media.
Constitutional Issues:
The ability of individual district judges to obstruct federal policy could be significantly diminished if the Court decides to restrict or do away with countrywide injunctions.
Any future executive branch would probably gain from this, particularly one that is dealing with as much litigation as Trump’s second term.
Undertones of politics:
Liberal judges, according to conservative readers and pundits, are overly aggressive and base their rulings more on ideology than the law.

14th amendment
Given the high political stakes under a divisive administration, the case becomes a focal point in the larger discussion over judicial activism vs. restraint.