Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884)

argument 24A884

Trump v. CASA, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 15m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the executive order and its constitutional basis?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty four A eight eight four, Trump versus CASA Incorporated, and the consolidated cases. General Sauer.

Evan W. McMullin 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. On january twentieth, twenty twenty five, President Trump issued Executive Order fourteen one sixty protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to this children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors. Multiple district courts promptly issued nationwide or universal injunctions blocking this order, and a cascade of such universal injunctions followed. Since january twentieth, district courts have now issued forty universal injunctions against the federal government, including thirty five from the same five judicial districts.

Evan W. McMullin 0:53

This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article three, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party. They transgressed the traditional bounds of equitable authority. А не креатил проблем. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed high stakes low information decisions. They circumvent rule twenty three by offering all the benefits but none of the burdens of class certification. They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere.

Evan W. McMullin 1:39

They invert invert the ordinary hierarch h hierarchy of a pellet review. They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments. They increased the pressures on this court's emergency docket. They create what Justice Powell described as repeated and essentially head on confrontations between the life tenured and representative branches of government. And they disrupt the constitution's careful balancing of the separation of powers. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:08

Uh General Sauer. The um Uh these uh universal injunctions, as you say, uh have proliferated over the last three decades or so. Uh d uh would you discuss, though, the um uh origins of universal injunctions. In particular I'm interested in sort of historical analogues or uh the historical uh pedigree, particularly the Bill of Peace uh that that was proffered by uh respondents.

Evan W. McMullin 2:39

Uh Yes, Justice Thomas, as you I think first pointed out in your uh separate opinion in Trump Against Hawaii, the Bill of Peace is something very distinct from a universal injunction. So the Bill of Peace involved a a resolution of a small discrete set of claims of a small discrete group, and even more fundamentally, it was binding on the members of that class and those represented by the class. So it's much more analogous to a modern class action under Rule 23.

How do universal injunctions create practical and constitutional problems?

Evan W. McMullin 3:05

And in fact, as we've argued in other cases, and as this court has described in opinions like Ortiz, the Bill of Peace evolved into and is directly developed into, so to speak, the modern class action that has all the the same uh uh features of a Bill of Peace. So in the words of Chief Judge Sutton in the Sixth Circuit, the Bill of Peace it was a domesticated animal that looks nothing like the dragon of a universal injustice. I'm sorry.

Elena Kagan 3:30

Go ahead. Here there's a discrete identified group on one issue. Does citizenship mean? Um Are you born in the territory of the United States? Or does it mean Are you loyal to someone else, which is your claim? Or are your parents loyal to someone else? So that's no different than what happened in a peace in a Bill of Peace. the United States is bigger. so it extends more broadly But it's still an identifiable group. On a discrete Singular question.

Evan W. McMullin 4:10

Uh in Your Honor, I'd say three things in response to that. First of all, our primary contention is that the citizenship clause related to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens who weren't even present as a discrete class at that time.