Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stunned the Supreme Court during oral arguments Thursday that left liberals scrambling for a response.
The nation’s highest court heard arguments on President Trump’s challenge to nationwide injunctions that have repeatedly been used to block his administration’s policies.
Thomas cut to the heart of the matter with one devastatingly simple observation that highlighted just how far the judiciary has strayed from its constitutional role.
Trump takes the fight to activist judges
The Supreme Court heard arguments focusing on nationwide injunctions after the Trump Administration asked the Court to stop lower courts from issuing these sweeping orders that apply across the entire country.
Four federal judges have already blocked President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which aims to address what many conservatives view as a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
According to Trump’s executive order, the 14th Amendment is being misinterpreted by the Left to grant automatic citizenship to children born to non-citizens temporarily in the country.
During Thursday’s oral arguments, Justice Thomas questioned U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer about the historical use of nationwide injunctions.
“General, when were the first universal injunctions used?” Thomas asked.
Sauer responded that he believes the first such ruling came in 1963, though some legal scholars argue it may have been as early as 1940.
Thomas delivers the perfect response
After hearing Sauer’s answer, Thomas delivered a simple yet profound observation that cut to the core of the issue.
“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Thomas said.
Sauer quickly agreed, adding, “That’s exactly correct. In fact, those are very limited and very rare. Even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007…”
The exchange highlighted how nationwide injunctions are a relatively recent judicial innovation that has dramatically expanded the power of individual district judges to halt presidential actions across the entire country.
Trump speaks out on birthright citizenship
Earlier Thursday, President Trump took to Truth Social to express his views on birthright citizenship, arguing that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant automatic citizenship to children of temporary visitors.
“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” Trump wrote.
He continued, “The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it!”
Trump pointed to the historical context of the 14th Amendment, noting, “Birthright Citizenship is about the babies of slaves. As conclusive proof, the Civil War ended in 1865, the Bill went to Congress less than a year later, in 1866, and was passed shortly after that.”
“It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country, from all parts of the World, which they have done for many years,” he added.
The growing problem of judicial activism
The case before the Supreme Court highlights the growing tension between the executive branch and an increasingly activist judiciary.
During the Trump administration, nationwide injunctions have been used at an unprecedented rate to block presidential policies on immigration, environmental regulations, and other issues.
Critics argue that these injunctions allow a single district judge to effectively set national policy, undermining the authority of both the executive branch and higher courts.
Supporters of nationwide injunctions claim they’re necessary to ensure uniform application of federal law and to protect rights across the country.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue could dramatically reshape the balance of power between the branches of government and determine how effectively future presidents can implement their policies.
With Republican-appointed Justices holding a 6-3 majority on the Court, there’s a strong possibility that the justices will place new limits on nationwide injunctions, restoring some of the executive authority that has been eroded in recent decades.
Justice Thomas’s observation serves as a powerful reminder that America functioned perfectly well for nearly two centuries without judges issuing nationwide injunctions that can paralyze presidential action with the stroke of a pen.
Related posts:
Harris Faulkner just delivered the brutal truth that left this Democrat strategist scrambling
Stephen Miller dropped one bombshell demand on ICE agents that left them scrambling
