NJ attorney general: Universal injunctions still possible after Supreme Court ruling
Share and Follow


New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (D) argued Monday that sweeping injunctions blocking the Trump administration’s policies could still be achieved, despite a Supreme Court ruling against them last week.

“[The Supreme Court] said very clearly: States still may need nationwide relief if, in fact, the harms that we experience as states … the consequences to states are enormous; so, they asked lower courts to consider that question,” Platkin, one of the state attorneys general who has advocated on behalf of the injunctions, told CNN’s Kate Bolduan in an interview. “I think we will very clearly be able to meet the standard that even this Supreme Court set out for states to meet should we need nationwide relief.”

The high court issued a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines Friday that pushed back on judicial holds that have been used to stymie the president’s agenda since his return to the White House in January.

“These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions’ — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court’s six Republican-appointed justices, after the Trump administration argued that judicial overreach was entrenching on the president’s powers.

The justices ordered the lower courts to move “expeditiously” to reconsider their injunctions and comply with the Friday ruling.

Platkin told Bolduan he thinks that leaves room for universal injunctions in some cases.

“Notably, it was a rhetorically very strong opinion, but it actually was quite a middle of the road opinion for what the administration wanted,” he said.

The case that prompted the court’s decision centered on an executive order Trump signed earlier this year to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to immigrants.

The court didn’t weigh in on the merits of birthright citizenship.

“Look, I think it’s important to remember what the Supreme Court did not do on Friday,” Platkin said. “They didn’t opine on the merits of birthright citizenship because everyone, for the last 157 years, has understood that babies born on U.S. soil since the Civil War have been treated as citizens.”

Share and Follow
You May Also Like

Conservatives huddle with Thune after plan to cut more from Medicaid stalls

A trio of conservatives pushing for an additional $313 billion in federal…

‘I’m not afraid’: Heartbreaking final text of tragic backpacker, 26, who perished in volcano crater after plunge on hike

TRAGIC backpacker Juliana Marins told her family “I’m not afraid” in a…

Teacher, 26, charged with having sex with student, 16 – after ‘telling colleague about sick affair’

A TEACHER has been charged with having sex with a 16-year-old student…

Trump administration wants to ax all of NOAA's climate research

The Trump administration wants to zero out climate research at the National…

Disney Dream cruise passengers recall horror after girl went overboard & dad jumped in water after her

PASSENGERS on board a Disney Dream cruise ship have spoken of their…

UK Encourages Young People to Have More Children as Birthrates Decline Rapidly

British Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has urged more young people to consider starting…

Idaho sniper suspect Wess Roley’s chilling social media post hours before ambush that saw two firefighters killed

THE suspected gunman who lit a wildfire to lure firefighters into tackling…

The Trump administration files lawsuit against Los Angeles for sanctuary policies

Donald Trump is ramping up his war against liberal ‘sanctuary city’ Los…