In a fiery rebuke from the Supreme Court bench on Thursday, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer denounced the “judicial insurrection” against President Trump’s second-term agenda.
Sauer highlighted that federal judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since January, effectively stalling key executive actions, including the administration’s controversial order to end birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a California woman has been sentenced to more than three years in prison for organizing a Chinese birth tourism scheme.
The Department of Justice said in a press release after their convictions:
According to evidence presented at a four-day trial, from at least January 2012 to March 2015, Liu and Dong ran a maternity house in Rancho Cucamonga. Liu and Dong rented apartment units in Southern California to provide short-term housing and provided other services to pregnant women from China who traveled to the United States to give birth so their children would acquire U.S. citizenship. Typically, within one or two months after giving birth, the women returned to China.
Among the services Liu and Dong provided was assistance on how to obtain visas to enter the United States, customs entry guidance, housing, and transportation in the United States, as well as assistance applying for U.S. legal documents for the children of their customers.
Liu and Dong advised their customers on how to hide their pregnancies from the immigration authorities. Liu and Dong also knew – or deliberately avoided learning – that their customers lied on their visa applications submitted to immigration authorities to enter the U.S.
Generally, their customers’ visa applications falsely stated that the purpose of the trip to the United States was for tourism, when it was to give birth, and the length of the stay was days or weeks, when it was in fact months. The visas also misstated the location where the customers intended to stay, which was defendants’ maternity hotel.
On Thursday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on President Trump’s birthright citizenship case, with a focus on nationwide injunctions.
The Trump Administration previously asked the Supreme Court to stop lower courts from issuing injunctions on a nationwide basis.
Conservative justices expressed skepticism about the broad application of such injunctions, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting their rarity before the 1960s.
Sauer argued that these injunctions prevent the “percolation” of legal questions through the judicial system and create asymmetrical burdens on the government.
Sauer: A cascade of such universal injunctions followed. Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations.
Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.
They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping.
They require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They circumvent Rule 23 by offering all the benefits but none of the burdens of class certification. They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere. They invert the ordinary hierarchy of appellate review.
They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments. They increase the pressures on this Court’s emergency docket.
They create what Justice Powell described as “repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government.” And they disrupt the Constitution’s careful balancing of the separation of powers.
LISTEN:
️JUDICIAL INSURRECTION
Solicitor General John Sauer explains the judicial insurrection, noting that courts have issued forty nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration so far. He explains why these injunctions are an abuse of the judicial power.
“Universal… pic.twitter.com/VXigYnlXLM
— Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025
Since returning to the White House on January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump has been met with an unprecedented onslaught of legal challenges from far-left activist judges and groups determined to sabotage his second term in power.
President Trump has faced 239 legal challenges from activist judges. Only 8 cases are closed.
Eric Teetsel from the American Renewal Center reported that Trump received 64 injunctions during his first term in office, which lasted from 2017 to 2021, compared with 14 injunctions against Biden.
Read the full article here