Oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday regarding the use of nationwide injunctions became “pretty hot,” according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Speaking with Fox News host Harris Faulkner, Turley detailed a tense session focused on the legality of a nationwide injunction that blocked a past executive order issued by President Donald Trump concerning birthright citizenship.
The special oral argument session saw the justices delve into the contentious practice of lower courts issuing injunctions that halt executive actions across the entire country. Turley highlighted one justice in particular as a source of the courtroom friction.
READ: Florida GOP Offers Helping Hand: Naming John Morgan’s New Political Party
“This has been a pretty hot argument. Chief Justice [John] Roberts doesn’t ordinarily talk over Justice Sotomayor and said, ‘Will you please let us hear his answer’ and by the way, Justice Sotomayor didn’t yield,” Turley recounted. “She continued to talk. She was right out of the gates very early and clearly, that was not going over well with some of the justices who want to hear what the solicitor general has to say. But Justice Sotomayor was very, very active.”
Adding another layer of intrigue, Turley pointed out that Justice Kagan, often considered one of the more liberal members of the court, had previously expressed skepticism about the broad reach of nationwide injunctions.
“The interesting thing so far is Justice Kagan, because she sort of painted herself in a corner in her interview at Northwestern Law School during the Biden Administration when she said, you know, these injunctions really are crazy,” Turley noted. “Today she was suggesting well, if we think this order is clearly unconstitutional, does that change the dynamic for us? So, it seemed like she is trying to reframe it a bit, in terms of how they would approach this.”
READ :13-Time Convicted Felon, Out On Bond For Murder, Arrested After Fleeing Traffic Stop
The case before the court revisits a nationwide injunction issued against a Trump executive order concerning birthright citizenship, enacted shortly after he took office in January 2025. This special session comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent temporary halt on the Trump administration’s attempt to expedite the deportation of members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In that April decision, the court affirmed the right of those facing deportation to challenge their removal.
President Trump has increasingly relied on executive orders to address immigration and border security, including designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. In March, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act to accelerate the deportation process for TdA gang members.
READ: Pennsylvania Judge Greenlights Trump Deportation Tool Against Venezuelan TdA Gang
Turley suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision to hold this unusual oral argument session underscores the growing tension between the judiciary and the Trump administration.
“There is this widening gap between the judiciary, both state and federal, and the Trump administration,” Turley stated. “And I think it’s one of the reasons why the Supreme Court took the injunction case in this irregular way. This is a pretty rare occasion for them to accept an oral argument in a case like this. I think they do want to bring clarity. But if the oral argument in the Supreme Court is any indication, there is more heat than light so far.”
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
