Josh Hammer

But the executive branch has every ability in the world to faithfully interpret the Constitution and to enforce the Constitution within their legitimate sphere of influence. The birthright citizenship thing would be a very good example there. SCOTUS has never definitively ruled one way or the other as to whether or not there is birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, a.k.a.

But the executive branch has every ability in the world to faithfully interpret the Constitution and to enforce the Constitution within their legitimate sphere of influence. The birthright citizenship thing would be a very good example there. SCOTUS has never definitively ruled one way or the other as to whether or not there is birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, a.k.a.

anchor babies. In fact – There's a lot of evidence that that's not supposed to be the end. That is not constitutionally required. So because that's an unresolved question, the executive can 1,000% choose to enforce its own understanding.

anchor babies. In fact – There's a lot of evidence that that's not supposed to be the end. That is not constitutionally required. So because that's an unresolved question, the executive can 1,000% choose to enforce its own understanding.

At some point, sooner rather than later, basically ASAP here, the United States Supreme Court is going to have to take a direct challenge to the entire practice of so-called nationwide injunctions. And as Clarence Thomas alluded to in his concurring opinion back in the 2018 case of Trump versus Hawaii, the landmark immigration case,

At some point, sooner rather than later, basically ASAP here, the United States Supreme Court is going to have to take a direct challenge to the entire practice of so-called nationwide injunctions. And as Clarence Thomas alluded to in his concurring opinion back in the 2018 case of Trump versus Hawaii, the landmark immigration case,

As Thomas said in his concurring opinion, SCOTUS is going to have to rein in these lower court judges, and that's going to have to happen, I think, ASAP.

As Thomas said in his concurring opinion, SCOTUS is going to have to rein in these lower court judges, and that's going to have to happen, I think, ASAP.

So in practice, I think the most concrete thing that SCOTUS can do is to say that nationwide injunctions are actually not a thing. And I think to this law review article here, I guess we'll nerd out just for a second here. So there was a law review article in the Harvard Law Review in December 2017 by a fantastic conservative legal scholar by the name of Sam Bray.

So in practice, I think the most concrete thing that SCOTUS can do is to say that nationwide injunctions are actually not a thing. And I think to this law review article here, I guess we'll nerd out just for a second here. So there was a law review article in the Harvard Law Review in December 2017 by a fantastic conservative legal scholar by the name of Sam Bray.

He's actually currently teaching in Notre Dame Law School, probably the single greatest piece of legal scholarship on the question of so-called nationwide injunctions.

He's actually currently teaching in Notre Dame Law School, probably the single greatest piece of legal scholarship on the question of so-called nationwide injunctions.

And he just persuasively demonstrates over the course of this legal scholarship that it's not a thing there because, again, the injunctive power, when courts are issuing an injunction, what they are doing in actuality is they are telling a certain defendant and a certain plaintiff that their actions with respect to each other have to go a certain way.

And he just persuasively demonstrates over the course of this legal scholarship that it's not a thing there because, again, the injunctive power, when courts are issuing an injunction, what they are doing in actuality is they are telling a certain defendant and a certain plaintiff that their actions with respect to each other have to go a certain way.

But it does not reach beyond the ambit of the named defendant and the named plaintiff there. This is a modern thing. The There was no such thing as a nationwide injunction until the 1960s. That was the very first recorded instance of one in the late 1960s, I think during the Lyndon Johnson presidency, maybe even the Nixon presidency there.

But it does not reach beyond the ambit of the named defendant and the named plaintiff there. This is a modern thing. The There was no such thing as a nationwide injunction until the 1960s. That was the very first recorded instance of one in the late 1960s, I think during the Lyndon Johnson presidency, maybe even the Nixon presidency there.

But it didn't explode into being until the very, very latter years of the Obama presidency and then really in actuality during the Trump presidency. This became a thing due to partisan lawfare. It is just lawfare by any other means. They lost the law fair against Donald Trump the last couple of years with Jack Smith and Fannie Wills and Alvin Bragg.

But it didn't explode into being until the very, very latter years of the Obama presidency and then really in actuality during the Trump presidency. This became a thing due to partisan lawfare. It is just lawfare by any other means. They lost the law fair against Donald Trump the last couple of years with Jack Smith and Fannie Wills and Alvin Bragg.

And now they're basically just trying law fair by any other means. So SCOTUS has the ability here. They have every ability in the world to say the nationwide injunctions are not a thing. Additionally, I'll say this as well.

And now they're basically just trying law fair by any other means. So SCOTUS has the ability here. They have every ability in the world to say the nationwide injunctions are not a thing. Additionally, I'll say this as well.