Mark Twain once used the word, Podunk to describe a small, unimportant town. Today, a Podunk pettifogger from just such a place thinks he is David taking on Goliath. But this time, Goliath is the duly elected President of the United States.
As we heard oral arguments on Thursday in the most crucial case that the Supreme Court will decide this term, it felt as if we were in a charged debate between two presidential candidates.
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging President Donald Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship. Amusingly, the focus of the arguments wasn't the 14th Amendment or any associated instances in the late 19th century. Instead, the apex court was struggling with a far more crucial issue that has wreaked havoc on how the federal court system has interfered with the Article II powers of the presidency: nationwide injunctions.
We published our opinions in an editorial on March 18. The Presidential Executive Order (EO) has become the way to govern Washington at a time when Congress is entirely dysfunctional. However, the vast network of federal district judges, who are, by definition, supposed to be apolitical and neutral, often rule against the EO. They do so increasingly on a "nationwide" basis, far beyond the districts their courtrooms oversee.
It has become a pressing and multifaceted issue. The United States federal judiciary has 677 district court judges (across 94 districts, including territorial courts like those in Puerto Rico and Guam). These are lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution. When an activist federal judge deems the underlying challenge to an EO from a plaintiff noteworthy, the judge sets out to ensure "uniform relief" across the entire country through a nationwide injunction. Even the nine Appeals Courts do not have such a reach. Even the Supreme Court doesn't have the same power unless at least five justices agree!
During the hearing, the nine justices questioned three lawyers: John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General representing the Trump administration, argued for limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions blocking the executive order;
Jeremy Feigenbaum, the New Jersey Solicitor General, represented the 22 states challenging the order, arguing for nationwide injunctions to ensure commonality across states; and Kelsi Corkran, representing individual plaintiffs and immigration advocacy groups, argued that limiting injunctions to specific parties would be administratively unworkable and urged the Court to address the merits of the order.
For what was an apolitical issue, the political biases of the justices were on full display.
Justice Elena Kagan challenged the government's position on nationwide injunctions, arguing that limiting them could create a "catch-me-if-you-can" justice system where individuals must file lawsuits to protect their rights, which she deemed inconsistent with the rule of law.
Interestingly, however, Justice Kagan was in favor of curtailing nationwide injunctions just a few years ago. At an appearance at the Northwestern University School of Law in 2022, Kagan said: "(This) just can't be right that one District Judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through a normal process." So, what changed, Justice Kagan?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has never impressed us with her questioning because her liberal political positions are so evident even before she utters a word, argued dangerously that the Article II powers of the presidency are subject to judicial review. She said that requiring every individual affected by the order to file their lawsuit was inefficient and inequitable, so nationwide injunctions are a good solution. In Jackson's world, a single, unelected judge could override the wishes of a duly elected president with a nationwide judicial order because such an action was equitable. In Justice Jackson's dictionary, every thought should involve a touch of equity, diversity, or inclusion.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the third Supreme Court Justice that Trump 45 nominated and had confirmed, is showing signs of transforming into another Justice David Souter, who passed away this week. Bush 41 nominated Souter to the Supreme Court as a strong conservative who could bring balance to a liberal court, but until the day Souter stepped down, he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, always siding with the liberals. Justice Barrett's concern was that if the Supreme Court outlawed nationwide injunctions, "unlawful" executive orders could persist before the Supreme Court could intervene. Justice Gorsuch shared Barrett's concerns. This point lacked legal depth because if an EO was indeed unlawful, the Supreme Court could always intervene on an emergency basis and stop it (see Chief Justice John Roberts below).
Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the government's claim that nationwide injunctions are a recent phenomenon, noting their deeper historical roots, and posed a hypothetical about a president seizing guns to question the scope of judicial authority. This argument wasn't especially sound because the Supreme Court is our last vestige of returning us to lawful behavior, and the Court can always act if there's an emergency. Sotomayor interrupted the lawyers so frequently that at one point, Chief Justice John Roberts had to intervene.
Expectedly, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his displeasure again at nationwide injunctions, pointing out that the U.S. judicial system operated without them until the 1960s, so why were they necessary now? Justice Samuel Alito, who has previously been a skeptic, hinted that he would vote to scale them back.
Chief Justice John Roberts focused on the procedural aspects of nationwide injunctions, suggesting that the Supreme Court has become more efficient at handling emergency cases expeditiously. He undercut the concerns of Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh had the best legal solution by suggesting that class-action lawsuits could serve as an alternative to nationwide injunctions. His questioning was a rare demonstration of principled legal analysis, not tainted by politics.
TIPP Picks
Selected articles from tippinsights.com and more
1. The Media ‘Jumps The Shark’—Victor Davis Hanson, The Daily Signal
2. Who’s To Blame For The Left’s ‘Assassination Culture’?—Editorial Board, Issues & Insights
3. Pettifoggers Proclaim Themselves Above The Law—Editorial Board, TIPP Insights
4. Last Year Saw Dramatic Fall In U.S. Drug Overdose Deaths—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
5. Iran Ready To Forgo Nukes, Sign Deal Today, If U.S. Lifts Sanctions—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
6. Even Biden Officials Are Stunned By Trump’s Mideast Deals—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
7. Trump Slashes Federal Overreach In One Fell Swoop—Natalie Sandoval, DCNF
8. Trump’s Core Strategy In The Middle East—Virginia Allen, The Daily Signal
9. Kennedy Defends HHS Budget, Staffing Cuts In Face Of Democrats’ Criticism—George Caldwell, The Daily Signal
10. Emails Reveal Anti-Trump Lawyer, Pundit Briefed Democrat Governors On Resistance—Fred Lucas, The Daily Signal
11. Border Patrol Applications Highest In US History Under Trump—Bethany Blankley, The Daily Signal
12. Johnson Threads Needle In Stitching Together ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ To Placate Factions—George Caldwell, The Daily Signal
13. Trump Presses Tim Cook To Keep iPhone Production In U.S.—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
14. Trump Eyes Return To Washington But Leaves Door Open For One Final Stop—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
15. Vance, Rubio To Attend Inaugural Mass Of First American Pope—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
16. Europe Prepares For Electoral ‘Super Sunday’—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
17. Rubio Holds Closed-Door Talks With Syrian, Turkish Officials On Syria’s Future—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
18. Zelenskyy Now Taps Out Of Istanbul Talks—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
19. Trump and Putin Sit Out Istanbul Talks, Dimming Hopes For Ukraine Breakthrough—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
20. Birthright Citizenship Back Before Supreme Court As Trump Calls It Outdated—TIPP Staff, TIPP Insights
TIPP Market Brief – May 16, 2025
Your Morning Snapshot
📊 Market Snapshot
- S&P 500: ▲ 5,816.93 (0.41% )
- 10-Year Yield: ▼ 4.455%, (7 basis points)
- Crude Oil (WTI): ▼ $61.62 (2.42%)
- Bitcoin (BTC): ▼ $103,386.23
- US Dollar Index (USD): ▼ 100.69 (0.12%)
- Gold: ▲ $3,245.66 (1.88%)
Bigger Charts: $SPX | $TNX | $WTIC | $BTCUSD | $USD | $GOLD
📈 Featured Stock
Our pick for today’s featured stock
📰 News & Headlines
With a 54% Gain in 2025, This Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stock Is Crushing the S&P 500. Is It Too Late to Buy?—Anthony Di Pizio, The Motley Fool
Is Duolingo, Inc. (DUOL) the Unstoppable Growth Stock to Invest in Now?—Bob Karr, Insider Monkey
⭐Recent Featured Stocks
Deutsche Bank (DB) (5/15)
Howmet Aerospace, Inc.(HWM) (5/14)
Okta, Inc.(OKTA) (5/13)
Root, Inc.(ROOT) (5/12)
Sea Limited (SE) (5/9)
Philip Morris (PM) (5/8)
Comstock Resources (CRK) (5/7)
Spotify (SPOT) (5/6)
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (KTOS) (5/5)
Stride, Inc. (LRN). (5/2)
More here
🧠 Macro Insight
U.S. futures are flat as the week wraps up, with investors weighing recent trade and growth signals. Barclays now expects the U.S. to avoid a recession this year, citing the positive impact of the U.S.-China trade deal.
Applied Materials (AMAT) shares fell after missing sales estimates in its core chip business, hurt by export limits to China. Gold is down sharply for the week as trade tensions ease and a stronger dollar reduces demand for safe-haven assets.
📅 Key Events Today
No events scheduled today
