I’ve mentioned earlier than that Jack Goldsmith’s Substack is “important studying” on the authorized points raised by Trump 2.0. That continues. I used to be notably excited by his newest publish, on yesterday’s oral argument: The Solicitor Basic Embraces Judicial Supremacy.
This is the introduction:
Many individuals have apprehensive that the Trump administration may refuse to respect a Supreme Court docket choice. In yesterday’s oral argument within the birthright citizenship emergency order case, Solicitor Basic John Sauer mentioned a number of instances that the Trump administration views itself to be certain not simply by a Supreme Court docket judgment, however, rather more broadly, by the precedent these judgments create. It is a main concession to judicial supremacy, and a serious stand-down on departmentalism, by the Trump administration.
What I didn’t totally perceive till yesterday’s oral argument is why this concession is required to make the federal government’s argument in opposition to common injunctions work. It’s, as I clarify beneath, the value the Trump administration should pay to get reduction from common injunctions.
Whether or not the Trump administration may be trusted to ship on Sauer’s concession is a particularly reasonable and open query, as I talk about on the finish of this essay. However in the primary thrust of the essay I’ll clarify the logic and potential significance of the concession. I feel the Court docket in its opinion will latch on to the concession, in a trend harking back to Marbury, to offer the federal government some extent of reduction from common injunctions even because the Court docket asserts the government-acknowledged supremacy of its precedents vis-á-vis the chief department.
