San Diego's congressional Democratic swiftly denounced the Supreme Court's decision to curb lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions, while the sole Republican in the delegation praised the ruling.
SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that a lower court exceeded its power in the case of Donald J. Trump v. CASA, challenging the president's executive order ending birthright citizenship.
"When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling created a legal regime where no rights are safe.
"Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship," she wrote.
Rep. Juan Vargas, D-CA 52, called the decision "shameful."
"By ruling on nationwide injunctions while punting on an obviously unconstitutional birthright citizenship order, the Supreme Court has abandoned any responsibility to rein in this administration and plunged millions of Americans into chaos," he wrote on X.
Rep. Mike Levin, D-CA 49, said the court made it easier to steamroll people's rights and promises to fight any effort to end birthright citizenship.
"By gutting nationwide injunctions, they’ve cleared the way for his agenda, from attacking birthright citizenship to crushing dissent," Levin said on X, adding, "I will fight this every step of the way."
Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-CA 51, said the ruling makes it harder to undo any future unconstitutional actions by the president. She also called efforts to end birthright citizenship "flat-out unconstitutional."
"If President Trump ever managed to derail that promise, it would create a new sub-class of millions of people who were born here in the United States, but don’t have the same rights and benefits of citizenship," she said in a long thread on X. "No vote. No passport. No equal protection. Limited due process. A safety net yanked away. That’s the human cost of eliminating birthright citizenship."
Rep. Scott Peters, D-CA 50, has yet to comment publicly on the ruling.
San Diego's lone Republican Rep. Darrell Issa praised the ruling, saying the court rejected raw partisan politicking from the bench.
"These rogue rulings from activist judges not only contradicted clear law, they also threatened to straitjacket the federal judiciary — and with it, the ability of President Trump to exercise his proper executive authority," he said in a news release. “I applaud the common-sense decision of the High Court."
San Diego legal analyst Dan Eaton said the ruling means injunctions can now only apply to the party that initiated the lawsuit, whether it is the state, an individual or a group.
“What the order means is that, if you're going to challenge an executive order, you'd better do it, as a class action, if you don't want it limited,” Eaton explained.
He said it also means presidents will now have freer hands in issuing executive orders without worrying that a district judge will block them.
“That kind of a broad invalidation of a presidential executive order will have to wait until ultimately the Supreme Court weighs in,” Eaton said. "From time to time, there will be cases where the president's order will be blocked, but only as to the people who are actually bringing the lawsuit. Not the entire country, not even the entire state, in which the lawsuit is brought."
He said that also means that previous nationwide injunctions against Trump are also invalid.
As for the issue of birthright citizenship, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state’s case is still moving forward.
“I'm hopeful that the court will see that a patchwork of state injunctions where birthright citizenship stands for some states, but not others, would inevitably create administrative chaos, sparking widespread confusion and spurring questions,” he said.
California sued the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship order in January.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to settle the issue sooner or later, Eaton said.
