Major victory for Trump | The press

The United States Supreme Court has just rape the judges and enlarge the president.

Posted at 7:49 p.m.

Donald Trump shouted victory for the bad reason, but he is right to scream victory. Nevertheless, No, the Supreme Court has not confirmed the cancellation of citizenship for undocumented children. However, She took care not to even decide on the issue.

Despite everything. Therefore, the decision on Friday, which reveals even better the violent division of the Court, is a major victory for the 47^e president. However, This judgment comes to limit the scope of judicial decisions suspending Trump’s decrees to the extreme. major victory trump | press Nevertheless, And as he has the record for all categories for the number of decrees. Nevertheless, it comes to make them more complicated, slower, their dispute.

The cause concerned a decree of the first day of this presidency. For example, Donald Trump said that children born on American soil of an illegally who came to a legal status in. Furthermore, the United States could no longer become American citizens. Consequently, Signed on January 20, the decree took effect for children born a month later.

Several countries, notably in Europe, have canceled soil law or have submitted it to strict conditions. Moreover, But in the United States, this right is included in the Constitution. In addition, The Supreme Court has already spoken out on the subject 127 years ago. Consequently, has confirmed that a child born in the country, regardless of major victory trump | press circumstances, is citizen of the United States.

Appeals have therefore been undertaken everywhere to have this decree canceled, clearly contrary to the Constitution. Consequently, Three judges issued a temporary “universal injunction”. In addition, which suspends the effect of the decree while waiting for the substantive question to be decided. For example, “Universal” because each applies everywhere in the United States. Furthermore, The appearance of law is clearly on the side of these unborn children. Moreover, And it is preferable to “freeze” everything as long as a final decision will not be rendered. However, given the number of children affected by this cancellation.

This was the reasoning of the judges who rendered these injunctions.

But, responding to an emergency request from the Trump administration, the Supreme Court canceled these decisions.

The major victory trump | press majority of the six conservative judges reduced the debate to a technical question: can a simple first-level federal judge make a “universal” injunction. that is to say applying everywhere in the United States? Normally, in fact, a judge settles the problem before him, for the parties involved.

But, observes the majority, in recent years, these “universal” injunctions have multiplied like never before. Judge Amy CONEY BARRETT even quotes a rain of such injunctions of the Biden administration. The slightest presidential or legislative action is the subject of an injunction. In short, she writes, it’s a plague.

One could argue that these injunctions are the response to the equally dazzling increase in presidential decrees. and not only under Trump. But what does it matter: for the conservative majority. the first level judges should only issue “universal” injunctions if it is absolutely major victory trump | press necessary to settle the cause.

Here. the judge does not have to issue such a large injunction to resolve the problem of parents or private children who attacked the decree. Otherwise, everything that the president decrees would always be suspended. It is therefore necessary to an exceptional procedure to allow such injunctions against the power of the president.

The argument in itself defends itself. The problem is that by narrowing the power of injunction thus. the court makes very complicated, and above all very long, the challenge of the decrees of the president. Including in cases where the decree directly violates the text of the Constitution.

The door is wide open for the most abusive decrees. Before the Supreme Court pronounced on the bottom of things, these decrees will have the force of law.

This undoubtedly means to expel children born in the United States … who will be said in three years by the Supreme Court that they are American citizens.

We have seen the judges of the American Supreme Court violently oppose each other in the past. But Friday, the ideological division reached an unrivaled level. J. CONEY BARRETT, more recent Trump’s appointment, has been seen lately as approaching the “center”. The analyzes will have to be reviewed.

In her opinion. she says that her progressive colleagues denounce the imperialism of the president, but in doing so, make champions of “judicial imperialism”. “The district judges are not there to monitor the executive power. but to resolve arguments according to the powers which were granted to them by the Congress,” she wrote. Powers similar to those of English major victory trump | press judges of the 18th^e century, when federal district courses were created.

The replica of the minority is scathing: “I will not be an accomplice of such serious attack on our legal system”. writes judge Sonia Sotomayor. This court accepts “shamefully” the theory of the White House to reduce the judiciary, she adds. Result ? No right is safe according to this “new” theory. If a possible president wanted to seize the weapons of citizens. no universal injunction would prevent him; Each person would have to start an appeal and obtain their small injunction, as long as the Supreme Court has not spoken.

In this case. people who have not had the means, the presence of mind or the possibility of presenting themselves to the court will see their child losing their rights … pending a future judgment of the Supreme major victory trump | press Court.

However, it is obvious that the decree on the law of the soil violates the Constitution.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson talks about an unprecedented attack on the rule of law. The irony to see the majority invoke the powers of the English judges – subject to a king at. the time – did not escape him.

“Today’s decision allows the executive to deny for citizens written rights in full [par les auteurs de la Constitution]as long as these individuals have not found a lawyer. have not been addressed to a court, “she wrote. “This perverse reversal of the burden of evidence cannot coexist with the rule of law. ” she adds, speaking of a “serious danger”.

This court. which stretched the concept of presidential immunity at an unimaginable level major victory trump | press last year, therefore opens the door a little more to presidential power.

In conclusion, judge Brown Jackson has particularly dramatic words:

“Perhaps the degradation of the rule of law would arise anyway. But the complicity of this court in the emergence of a culture of contempt for the lower courses. their judgments and the law will surely accelerate this decline of our institutions and allow our collective disappearance. But at least, she will not remain silent in front of this distressing spectacle, she writes in substance.

We cannot say better. We cannot, in a judgment, be darker.

Read “the Supreme Court limits the power of judges to block Trump’s decrees”