As judges block policies nationwide, Trump tests legal strategies to keep them alive
As judges block policies nationwide, Trump tests legal strategies to keep them alive Trump lawyers are 'throwing spaghetti against the wall' or are playing a 'shell game' to see what legal strategies work to defend his policies in court battles, experts say.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO
The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.
Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to halt nationwide injunctions against Trump policies but said if class-action lawsuits took their place, he would oppose them too.
Legal experts said if the Supreme Court abolishes nationwide injunctions, Trump could cut his losses by limiting the reach of court rulings that go against him.
WASHINGTON – As the Trump administration fights to kill 40 court orders blocking policies nationwide, legal experts say the government's strategy is to break the cases apart, into individual disputes, to delay an eventual reckoning at the Supreme Court.
One expert called President Donald Trump's legal strategy a 'shell game.' Another said government lawyers were 'throwing spaghetti against the wall' to see what sticks.
'Their bottom line is that they don't think these cases should be in court in the first place,' said Luke McCloud, a lawyer at Williams and Connolly who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'They are looking for a procedural mechanism that will make it the most challenging to bring these sorts of cases.'
Presidents of both parties have opposed nationwide injunctions
Trump policies blocked by federal court judges cover a broad swath of issues, including restrictions on immigration, a ban on transgender troops in the military and drastic funding cuts to marquee U.S. agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services. The common element is that a single federal judge in one of 94 regional districts paused a policy for the entire country while the case is being litigated.
Presidents of both parties have opposed these kinds of policy blocks. Barack Obama faced injunctions against Obamacare and Joe Biden's plan to forgive student loans was blocked. Supreme Court justices have also voiced concerns about district courts setting national policy before the high court gets a chance to weigh in.
'As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions,' Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 opinion.
Could class-action lawsuits replace nationwide injunctions?
The unresolved question is how − or whether − presidential policies could be blocked if the Supreme Court limits or abolishes nationwide injunctions.
A district judge's ruling's impact would extend to the geographical boundaries of where the judge presides. If the case is appealed to a circuit court of appeals, that could broaden the impact because circuits span multiple states. But Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the administration, refused to commit, during a Supreme Court argument on May 15 that the administration would obey circuit decisions.
If the justices rule against nationwide injunctions, one option for expanding the reach of specific cases would be for litigants to join together in class-action lawsuits. But certifying who gets to participate in the lawsuit can take months or years, while a policy and its arguable harms would survive.
'The Trump administration wants to win by losing,' said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia who specializes in immigration. 'Even if it loses case after case after case, it wins in the sense of implementing his policies nationwide for years.'
Trump supported and opposed class-action lawsuits
As Trump seeks to abolish nationwide injunctions, government lawyers have argued for and against the cases becoming class actions.
'I think the government is basically throwing spaghetti at the wall and looking for any excuse and any case to kick it out of court,' said Alan Trammell, an associate law professor at Washington and Lee University who is an expert on nationwide injunctions.
A trio of cases at the Supreme Court oppose Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a citizen or legal permanent resident.
Sauer, the solicitor general, urged the justices on May 15 to lift all further nationwide injunctions on the policy and argued a class action was the legitimate way to challenge the citizenship order. But Sauer also said he would oppose certifying a class action.
After the blockbuster hearing, Trump urged the court not to be swayed by Democratic pressure. Trump stated in a social media post on May 16 that 'THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS.'
In another set of cases, hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants are fighting deportation under Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The high court ruled in April that each immigrant had to file a separate lawsuit in the region where they are detained, rather than join a class action.
In a separate case involving Venezuelan immigrants, the Supreme Court has blocked their removal from the United States until the justices can decide whether the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been invoked during a declared war, applies to them. The Trump administration contends that the immigrants are enemy combatants because they allegedly belong to a criminal organization.
Following the ruling, said in a social media post on May 16: "THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!"
The Venezuelans, accused of being members of the gang Tren de Aragua, could also potentially be recognized as a class of detainees in Texas, the court said.
Requiring individual lawsuits or forcing people to prove they belong in class-action lawsuits would splinter the litigation and delay the eventual results when appeals are exhausted, experts said.
'The courts don't want that. They're overwhelmed as it is,' said Frost, the professor specializing in immigration. 'But, of course, the Trump administration would like that. It's trying to flood the zone and overwhelm the institutions.'
Justices rule out class action in immigrant detention cases
The Supreme Court has been scrutinizing the strategy of class actions in Trump cases.
A federal judge was considering a class action for Venezuelan immigrants fighting deportation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). But the Supreme Court ruled on April 7 that the immigrants must file individual lawsuits to force the government to justify their detention.
Sotomayor, who dissented, called the decision 'suspect' and 'dubious.' She accused the government of trying to hustle immigrants onto deportation flights without offering them a chance to contest the allegations, including whether they are gang members, in court.
'The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,' Sotomayor wrote.
Forcing immigrants to wage their own legal battles could delay the eventual resolution of the cases at the Supreme Court.
'That kicks the can down the road and it has the added benefit, from the government's perspective, of preventing a class action and enforcing this piecemeal litigation,' Trammell, the injunction expert, said. 'What it effectively amounts to is this drip, drip, drip approach.'
Trump plays 'shell game' with immigration cases: expert
Steven Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that in a bevy of recent court rulings, the Trump administration tried to slow down or defeat immigration cases by moving detainees.The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case of a Tufts student named Rumeysa Ozturk should continue to be heard in Vermont, where it began, despite federal authorities moving her to a Louisiana detention facility.
A federal judge in Virginia ruled that a Georgetown postdoctoral fellow, Badar Suri, could bring his lawsuit in that state rather than transferring it to Texas, where he is now detained.
And a federal judge in New Jersey continues to preside over the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student activist, despite his transfer to Louisiana.
'The good news in all of these developments is that the shell games failed, at least in these high-profile individualized immigration detention contexts,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter on developments in federal law.
Justices weigh class-action lawsuits for birthright cases
Justices questioned the lawyers on May 15 about how class-action lawsuits would work in birthright citizenship cases. Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh separately asked the lawyers for both sides whether the strategy would provide a remedy if nationwide injunctions no longer existed.
'Is there a practical problem?' Kavanaugh asked.
New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremey Feigenbaum, who represents 22 states in the case, said yes, because states can't file class actions. Certifying a class is challenging and time-consuming because participants must show they have common interests. For example, immigrant parents who arrived days before the birth of a child might not be considered in the same class as those who arrived 10 years earlier.
If the high court doesn't allow birthright injunctions to all states, it would create a patchwork of disparate legal practices. Without a nationwide pause on Trump's order, Kavanaugh posed, the federal government would refuse to recognize the citizenship of babies born in a state that isn't participating in the lawsuit. Children of undocumented immigrants or tourists would be citizens in some states and not in others.
'What do hospitals do with a newborn?' Kavanaugh asked. 'What do states do with a newborn?'
Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett asked why Sauer sought to abolish nationwide injunctions if class-action lawsuits would accomplish the same thing.
'What is the point of this argument about universal injunctions?' Alito asked.
Sauer said injunctions encourage litigants to shop for favorable judges and prevent courts from "percolating" over complex issues, or considering them thoroughly before they arrive before the high court.
Justice Elena Kagan and Barrett pressed the government's lawyer about whether the Trump administration would obey temporary circuit rulings blocking its policies until the Supreme Court issued final decisions.
'Generally, our practice is to respect circuit precedent within the circuit," Sauer said. "But there are exceptions to that."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Netanyahu praises Trump Iran strikes: ‘Peace through strength'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked President Trump on Saturday for directing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. 'President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,' Netanyahu said in a video on the social platform X. 'President Trump, I thank you. The people of Israel thank you. The forces of civilization thank you. God bless America. God bless Israel. And may God bless our unshakable Alliance our unbreakable faith,' he continued. Trump announced on Saturday evening that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites and said, 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Netanyahu congratulated Trump for making the 'bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States,' saying it 'will change history.' Netanyahu touted the efforts Israel has made in its strikes against Iran, adding, 'but in tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed.' 'It has done what no other country on Earth could do. History will record: President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons,' the Israeli leader said. 'His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace,' he continued, referring to Trump. The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations. White House sources indicated the U.S. had given Israel a heads up before it struck the Iranian sites and that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes. It marked a significant entrance by the U.S. into a conflict that Israel and Iran had been in for more than a week. It also indicated a shift by Trump, who said he was seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran and sent U.S. officials to make a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program.
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran's foreign minister brands Donald Trump a 'lawless bully' as Keir Starmer holds Cobra meeting
Iran's foreign minister has slammed Donald Trump as a 'lawless bully' after the United States launched strikes on the state's nuclear facilities. Three sites were attacked in Iran overnight, which President Trump claimed had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. It followed days of speculation over whether the US would take action amid an escalating situation between Israel and Iran. READ MORE: Donald Trump confirms US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities READ MORE: Jet2 issues travel warning to UK tourists flying to popular European holiday destination In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer is due to chair a Cobra meeting on Sunday afternoon following the US strikes. The government has said the UK had no involvement in last night's strikes, but was aware of Mr Trump's decision. Speaking at a press conference this morning (June 22), Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi described the Trump administration as 'warmongering', while he warned that diplomacy was not currently possible. "Silence in the face of such blatant aggression will plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos," he said. "Humanity has come too far as a species to allow a lawless bully to take us back to the law of the jungle." The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi insisted that while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. He added: "The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression." Mr Araghchi said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: "The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only." Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the mountainside at the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, show the once-brown mountain now has parts turned grey and its contours appear slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. Join the Manchester Evening News WhatsApp group HERE It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer said: "Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. "The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis."
