The Political Orphanage Rogue Judges and Birthright Citizenship
6 snips
Oct 6, 2025 
Tim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, dives deep into the ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling on universal injunctions in Trump v. Casa. He tackles what it means for federal judicial power and the implications for birthright citizenship based on the 14th Amendment. Tim and the host explore the historical context of injunctions, the definition of jurisdiction, and whether the Constitution protects citizenship rights for undocumented immigrants. With a blend of legal insight and constitutional debate, Tim offers compelling perspectives on these hot-button issues.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Universal Injunctions Are Historical But Contested
- Universal injunctions are an old equitable tool allowing courts to require or forbid actions broadly across jurisdictions.
- Tim Sandefur argues the Supreme Court's limitation on them changes doctrine but not much in practice because other mechanisms achieve similar results.
Nationwide Effect Via Different Doctrines
- Courts can invalidate federal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act and that invalidation applies nationwide.
- A judge's declaration of unconstitutionality in one district strongly influences other courts even if not technically binding.
Formal Limits vs Practical Compliance
- The Supreme Court emphasized courts only have authority over parties before them, limiting district judges' reach.
- In practice, injunctions against the federal government often produce de facto nationwide compliance because agencies usually obey.
