I've been on the bench for over four decades, I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is,
While the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purport to cover every person in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power,
Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to 'hundreds of thousands' of unspecified individuals who are 'not before the court nor identified by the court,'
Three district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued overlapping nationwide injunctions at the behest of 22 States, two organizations, and seven individuals,
This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,
States and their political subdivisions have inundated federal courts with politically charged suits challenging federal policies,
Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Constitution does not harbor a windfall clause granting American citizenship to, inter alia: the children of those who have circumvented (or outright defied) federal immigration laws,
These cases – which involve challenges to the President's January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border,