Clarence Thomas Exposes Absurdity of Nationwide Injunction Power [WATCH]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday in Trump v. CASA, a pivotal case concerning the limits of judicial power and the scope of President Donald Trump’s executive authority regarding birthright citizenship.

At the heart of the case is Executive Order 14,160, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025.

The order, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, directs federal agencies to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to individuals who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, opened arguments by stating, “On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.”

Sauer focused not only on the substance of the order but also on the federal judiciary’s response.

“Multiple district courts promptly issued nationwide or universal injunctions blocking this order, and a cascade of such universal injunctions followed,” he said.

“Since January 20, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

He argued that these injunctions overstep the authority granted to the judiciary under Article III of the Constitution.

“Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party,” Sauer told the justices.

“They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems…they disrupt the Constitution’s careful balancing of the separation of powers.”

According to the administration, activist courts have issued more national injunctions against President Trump’s orders than against any other president in American history.

Justice Clarence Thomas, known for his typically reserved role during oral arguments, posed a pointed historical question to Sauer, challenging the modern use of nationwide injunctions.

“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” Thomas asked.

“Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s, it exploded in 2007,” Sauer responded.

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: “So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?”

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOHN SAUER: “Correct. Those were rare in the 1960s, it exploded in 2007.”

It’s time to abolish black robe tyranny. pic.twitter.com/0R6b1TDtNB

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 15, 2025

The case has implications not only for immigration law but also for the judicial branch’s role in shaping federal policy.

While several justices did not disclose their leanings during the proceedings, the issue of judicial overreach has found criticism across the ideological spectrum.

Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by former President Barack Obama and a member of the Court’s liberal bloc, has previously spoken out against nationwide injunctions.

In 2022, Kagan argued that it is “absurd” for a single federal judge to have the power to halt the agenda of a duly elected president and the executive branch.

A decision in Trump v. CASA is expected later this term.

The ruling could redefine the legal boundaries of both executive immigration powers and the federal courts’ ability to issue nationwide orders.

Connect with Vetted Off-Duty Cops to Instantly Fulfill Your Security Needs