Sotomayor Warns No One Is Safe After Birthright Citizenship Ruling
In dissident opinions, judges Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson have excrupted the decision of the Supreme Court on Citizenship of the right of birth, which restricts the ability of the courts to prevent Trump’s white house from carrying out its orders without law.
The question was whether the lower courts could issue “national injunctions”, interrupting Trump’s anti-renvoir citizenship against anyone, and not only those who dispute the ordinance before the court or living in a jurisdiction where it is disputed.
While not recognizing the constitutionality of the decree, which refuses automatic citizenship to children born on American soil to undocumented immigrants and those who have temporary status, majority opinion declared that such injunctions “probably exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts”.
Judge Sotomayor had words of choice for this decision, which apparently provides powerful ammunition of Trump in his attacks on civil freedoms. She was joined by judges Elena Kagan as well as Jackson, who also wrote a dissident opinion.
“No right is certain in the new legal regime that the court creates,” read the dissent of Sotomayor. “Today, the threat is the citizenship of the right of birth. Tomorrow, a different administration can try to seize the firearms of citizens who have horizons or prevent people from some times to come together. ”
Sotomayor has used an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of the government’s demand to regain gels at the national level of clearly illegal orders: “Suppose the government has prohibited women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens to vote is irregular from such policies.
Sotomayor burnt down his conservative colleagues for giving in to Trump: “With a pen, the president made a” solemn mockery “of our constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than staying firm, the court gives up. Because such a complicity should not know any place in our law system, I dissipate myself. ”
Jackson began his dissent by noting that she accepts “with each word from the dissent of judge Sotomayor” and decided to deposit his to emphasize that the court’s decision represents “an existential threat to the rule of law”.
Trump’s request to delete universal injunctions, Jackson wrote: “is below a Request for the authorization of this court to engage in illegal behavior “and” to continue to do something that a court determined violates the constitution “.
By granting this wish, Jackson wrote, the majority allowed Trump to act little like a monarch, giving “the executive the green light to sometimes exercise the kind of uncontrolled arbitrary power, the founders designed our constitution to eradicate.”
By placing “the burden on the victims to invoke the protection of the law”, the court created circumstances in which “a Martian arriving here from another planet … would surely wonder:” What is the constitution for, then? ” »»
The decision of the court marks “a sad day for America,” said Jackson, demanding judges, faced with Trump’s anarchy, “look in the other direction” and allow “illegal conduct to continue tirelessly”.
“Perhaps the degradation of our state of law regime would occur anyway,” she wrote. “But the complicity of this court in the creation of a culture of disdain for the lower courts, their decisions and the law (as they interpret it) will surely accelerate the fall of our governing institutions, allowing our collective disappearance.”
