Advisory Opinions SCOTUS Sides with Trump
123 snips
Jun 27, 2025 William Baude, a law professor at Chicago University, and Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University, dive into the Supreme Court’s intriguing non-decision on birthright citizenship. They dissect the implications of judicial supremacy and the notable clash between Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The conversation humorously touches on naming legal dockets and contrasts judicial philosophies, offering insights on equity, standing, and how recent rulings are reshaping federal law's landscape.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Court Avoids Birthright Citizenship Merits
- The Supreme Court did not decide on the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause merits.
- They focused on procedural issues and the limits of universal injunctions.
Universal Injunctions Are Likely Barred
- The Court likely barred universal injunctions as exceeding federal courts' equitable authority.
- But it did not definitively say universal injunctions are always impermissible, leaving some wiggle room.
Statutory Originalism Shapes Ruling
- The Court's ruling is more statutory, based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, than strictly constitutional.
- It applies originalist principles focusing on equity powers from 1789, not modern expansions.