Re: Nationwide injunctions

On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
 
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
 
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
 
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
 
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
 
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
 
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
 
>
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?

Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.