Trump handed ‘giant win’ as Supreme Court curbs judges’ power to block his orders

The three liberal justice on the counter opposed and according to the opposition views, justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the decision was “an attack on our legal system ve and“ no right is safe in the new legal regime created by the court ”.

Loading

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority view, said Trump’s 2020 appointment to the court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Federal courts did not use the general supervision of the government’s executive branch. On the contrary, they solved the cases and discussions consistent with the authority given to them by the congress.

“When a court concludes that the executive branch is illegal, the answer is not that the court exceeds its power,” he wrote.

One of the main reasons why the majority has made a universal precautionary precautionary decision has found that it is a modern phenomenon as a form of relaxation put forward by the US Constitution.

“As a founder or for more than a century, there was a universal precautionary precautionary measures, B said Barrett. “Thus, in accordance with the judicial law, the federal courts lack the authority to give them.”

In his opposition, Sotomayor said that he wanted the government to find out that a law or policy was “no matter how illegal”, the courts could never tell anyone who has never stopped the application against anyone except the plaintiffs who opened the case.

“The game management in this request is evident and the government does not try to conceal it. Nevertheless, embarrassing, this court plays together,” he wrote.

“Today, the threat is innate citizenship. Tomorrow, a different management lawyer can try to seize firearms from lawyers or to prevent people from worshiping certain beliefs.”

Sotomayor said that the majority view was meant unless there is a class case, and that the courts could not even benefit from illegal policies. For this reason, constitutional guards have been made meaningless for anyone who is not a party to the case.

“Because I will not be a criminal partner in such a big attack on our legal system, I am opposition, Sut he wrote.

According to a separate opposition view, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority’s decision pose an existential threat to the rule of law ”.

The Supreme Court did not think that the executive order of Trump had violated the compliance of the constitution or the law of nationality to end the innate citizenship. In this case, such questions were not brought to the agenda, but probably will be decided in October in accordance with the waiting case.

The long -standing principle and authority of the citizenship of the right to birth stems from the 14th amendment in the Constitution: “Everyone born or with citizenship in the United States is the citizens of the United States and the state they reside.”

Trump’s executive order claimed that the article should not be interpreted as citizenship to everyone born in the United States. In particular, the substance is not valid when a person’s mother is illegal in the US and whose fathers are not a US citizen or a permanent residence time at birth.

Furthermore, a person’s mother claimed that the decision was not applied when the mother was legally in the USA and the US citizen or permanent residence during the birth. This included a student, a mother who visited the USA with a business or tourist visa.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the administration’s plans to terminate the citizenship of the administration would be due to the result of the case due to the decision of the Supreme Court in October.

Bondi said the priority was to remove violent criminals from the USA. “You should all be safer because President Trump can deport all these gangs and a regional court judge cannot think of these administrative and executive powers and why the people of the United States have chosen him.”