Discussion on Supreme Court Ruling
Scott Jennings from CNN characterized a jab involving Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan as a “hack” following a recent ruling on a national injunction. During the discussion, Abby Phillips from CNN prompted Jennings to share his insights, particularly concerning how this injunction reflects on both Democratic and Republican presidents. She described Friday as a “massive day” for former President Donald Trump.
Jennings mentioned grappling with his feelings on the matter and referred to a quote from a “very clever lawyer.” He highlighted a previous statement from Kagan, noting that she had, in 2022, opposed the decision made on Friday when a Democrat held the presidency. He expressed his intention to demonstrate that some people have been engaging in this sort of “hacking.”
Kagan, speaking on the matter, remarked, “It’s not right that a single district judge can halt national policy and keep it on hold for an extended period while going through the usual processes.” She shared these thoughts during a lecture at Northwestern University law school.
Jennings added that it’s not appropriate for a lone district judge to act with such authority, comparing it to a king or a monarch. He felt it was important that necessary corrections were made by the higher courts.
In a 6-3 ruling, Kagan also took a stand against her fellow Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, asserting that “children born in the United States, as well as those under this law, are American citizens.” This principle, she indicated, has been a legal rule since the law’s inception and rooted in English legal tradition.
She pointed out that the government does not typically seek a complete stay of an injunction before the court, and argued that to secure such relief, it needs to demonstrate its case thoroughly, backed with constitutional, historical, and legal precedents. Kagan criticized the government’s approach, suggesting they seemed to be navigating a different strategy, implying they wanted the court to rule without necessarily halting enforcement.
This ruling arose from three cases where a judge had enacted a nationwide injunction linked to a Presidential Order signed by Trump on his first day in office, which aimed to end birthright citizenship in the United States.
