The Birthright Citizenship Showdown Focuses on Nationwide Injunctions | National Review

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

46% : " There are practical and jurisprudential arguments for and against nationwide injunctions.
33% : History and Practice Justice Clarence Thomas has questioned, as far back as his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where in the Constitution or statutes the courts are given the authority for nationwide injunctive relief that benefits people who are not parties to the court.
28% : Unsurprisingly, lawsuits followed immediately when Trump issued his order, and the administration has lost in every court to consider the issue so far, because lower courts are not the proper place in which to challenge a Supreme Court precedent.
27% : States argue that they are harmed by Trump's order in a number of ways (such as increased paperwork) that were not found to be a basis for standing in the Obamacare mandate case.
21% : It seems that the solicitor general hopes to repeat the Trump campaign's legal strategy in Trump v. Anderson of winning the case on process questions, and in Trump's criminal cases of winning on immunity.
11% : This morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. CASA, Inc. and two other consolidated cases challenging Donald Trump's executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of transients and illegal aliens.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.