The Supreme Court mulled whether judges should be allowed to extend injunctive relief to the entire country in a lively argument Thursday stemming from President Trump’s efforts to narrow birthright citizenship.

The practice of issuing nationwide — or “universal” — injunctions drew both criticism and staunch defense from the justices, as the argument bled into the actual constitutionality of Trump’s order and whether the administration would abide by court precedents.

Here are five takeaways from the argument:

Conservatives question need for universal injunctions

Several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives lamented the recent rise in nationwide injunctions, noting they didn’t exist near the founding and have largely been used against modern presidential administrations.

Justice Clarence Thomas in the few questions he asked pressed the attorneys when such rulings came about.

“So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions,” Thomas noted at one point.

“That’s exactly correct,” responded Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing Trump. “And in fact, those are very limited and very rare, even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007.”

Judges issued six nationwide injunctions during the second Bush administration, according to an analysis published in the Harvard Law Review. The number doubled to 12 during the Obama administration before skyrocketing to 64 during Trump’s first term.

During the Biden administration, the number of nationwide injunctions fell back to 14. Sauer said Thursday that 40 have been issued against Trump so far in his second term, already surpassing Biden’s number.

Multiple........

© The Hill