There was drama during a hearing at the Supreme Court when Chief Justice John Roberts chastized his liberal colleague, Sonia Sotomayor.
Roberts reprimanded Sotomayor for repeated interruptions during arguments on birthright citizenship.
President Donald Trump’s administration lawyer, John Sauer, had difficulty getting a word in as Sotomayor talked over him.
Sauer defended the merits of Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The arguments centered largely on the use of nationwide injunctions by Democrat-aligned activist judges in lower courts.
In his opening statement, Sauer noted that courts have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump’s inauguration, but Sauer called judicial overreach a “bipartisan problem.”
Universal injunctions, he said, encourage “forum shopping” and “require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”
Sauer argued that courts should rule on the plaintiffs directly in front of them, instead of blocking government actions nationwide.
The conservative justices appeared receptive to Sauer’s arguments.
However, they had questions about the patchwork effects of curtailing universal injunctions.
On the other hand, the three liberal justices seemed to have their minds made up.
“Let’s just assume you’re dead wrong,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
“Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit?
“Are there alternatives? How long does it take?”
Early on in the session, Sotomayor interrupted Sauer repeatedly as he was making his argument against nationwide injunctions.
“You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, that both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive from universally violating holdings by this court,” Sotomayor said.
“We are not claiming that, because we are conceding that…” Sauer replied before Sotomayor cut him off.
“Can I hear the rest of his answer?” Roberts interjected.
Sauer began to explain that lower courts can issue limited injunctions, or in certain cases, certify class actions.
But Sotomayor didn’t let him finish his thought.
“Lower courts in appropriate cases may certify class actions…” Sauer began saying.
“So, when a new president,” Sotomayor interrupted.
“Can I hear counsel?!” Roberts protested.
As the exchange wrapped up, Sauer pushed back on the “profoundly incorrect” characterization Sotomayor provided on the merits of Trump’s executive order.
Sotomayor claimed the order violates four different Supreme Court rulings.
She was about to take up the issue again when Roberts changed the topic.
Trump’s executive order maintains the “original meaning” of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves and “not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors,” Sauer said in his opening.
