Trump’s authoritarianism creeps into SCOTUS birthright citizenship hearing

Content Summary

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding a significant case concerning birthright citizenship, largely associated with Donald Trump’s administration. However, the most impactful moment during these proceedings was not focused on citizenship itself, but rather on the Trump administration’s stance towards complying with judicial rulings. D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General and prominent legal advocate for Trump, seemed to indicate that the administration might not adhere to lower court orders consistently, a revelation that raised concerns about potential authoritarian tendencies.

During the oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Sauer about the administration’s approach to complying with lower court decisions. He suggested that while it is a “general practice” to respect established precedents, there are situations where the government may not feel compelled to follow those orders. This ambiguous statement prompted Barrett to seek clarification on whether this practice was unique to the Trump administration or reflective of a longer-standing Justice Department policy.

Sauer maintained that it could indeed be seen as long-standing practice for the Department of Justice to respect lower court rulings, though he admitted that there can be exceptions. Barrett pressed him specifically about scenarios where the administration might defy these rulings. His vague responses indicated that the government might choose not to comply with recent judicial decisions if the administration believes them to be incorrect or “lawless.”

The implications of Sauer’s statements were significant: they suggested a potential reluctance or refusal by the executive branch to comply with judicial orders, a viewpoint that diverges from longstanding Department of Justice protocols. This assertion is particularly alarming given the weight it carries coming from a top official in a legal context, rather than from political figures or representatives.

Rubin highlights that this encounter raises critical questions about checks and balances in the U.S. legal system. The willingness to interpret compliance with court rulings as conditional can undermine the separation of powers, posing a threat to the judicial system’s authority. The risks of such a mindset, particularly when expressed before the Supreme Court, are profound and may contribute to a dangerous precedent regarding governmental respect for judicial mandates.



Source link

www.msnbc.com