In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of so-called “universal injunctions” as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of “originalism.”
In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself.
To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration.
But it also does grave damage to the court itself — Trump v. Casa now takes its place among the high court’s most infamous rulings. As Stephen Lubet says, it returns us to the world of its discredited Dred Scott decision, which found that the rights of Black people depended on where they lived. Just like Blacks in the antebellum world who had one status in free states and another in slave states, immigrants and others may now find themselves in a legal nether land.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5376627-supreme-court-universal-injunctions-ruling