THE NEWS

Update (1403ET): The Supreme Court on Thursday grappled with how far federal judges could go in issuing sweeping blocks on the executive branch – such as President Donald Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship.

As the Epoch Times notes, their comments came during oral argument over the administration’s request that the high court remove three nationwide injunctions on Trump’s order.

Those nationwide blocks are among the many issued by federal judges that have halted a range of Trump administration policies.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued for the Trump administration, told the justices that nationwide injunctions had been used in ways that exceeded judges’ authority under Article III of the Constitution. More specifically, he and others have criticized nationwide injunctions for granting relief on a broad basis rather than just for the parties before the court.

Some of the justices, however, expressed concern about how other people purportedly harmed by Trump’s policy would get relief without a nationwide block.

At least two justices—Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—indicated that they believed Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship breached the 14th Amendment and that large numbers of people were therefore harmed by it.

Meanwhile here’s Ketanji…

Kentaji Brown Jackson just argued that nationwide injunctions by district court judges to block Trump’s agenda “is actually what we would want.”

Completely insane. pic.twitter.com/Mj6z3Sh0Eo

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) May 15, 2025

The hearing was unusual in that it focused less on legal arguments on whether Trump’s birthright citizenship policy runs afoul of the 14th Amendment and instead concentrated on the legality of the practice of nationwide injunctions. More in-depth questions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment will continue playing out in the court system.

Kagan told Sauer that if she were in his shoes, there was no way she would bring the case to the Supreme Court and noted that multiple federal judges had ruled against the administration. Following some intense questioning from Kagan, Justice Neil Gorsuch said she asked questions better than he could. Both of them seemed concerned that without nationwide injunctions, those affected by the order would have to undergo a lengthy legal process to get relief.

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to push back on this point, saying that the Supreme Court had intervened quickly in previous cases, suggesting it could provide quick relief in the future.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

Support independent media. Grab a ZeroHedge hat at the ZH Store, or buy any 2 bags of coffee and receive a free ZeroHedge Tumbler!

*  *  *

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.

The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump v. CASA out of  Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts. These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.

However, the main question is the scope of injunctions.

As I have previously written, district court judges have issued a record number of injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. 

Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. 

However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.

When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. 

That was not due to more modest measures. 

Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.

Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.

This is a rare argument. 

First, it is a shadow docket filing that usually results in summary decisions without oral argument. Moreover, this matter came after what is commonly viewed as the final day for oral arguments. The Court granted a rare late oral argument, reflecting that multiple justices view this matter sufficiently serious to warrant a break from standard operating procedures.

Rather than arguing a “question presented” on birthright citizenship, the Administration is solely looking for limits on the district courts as appeals continue on the “important constitutional questions” raised by birthright citizenship.

The Administration argues that the Constitution does not give judges the power to issue universal injunctions and that courts are limited to addressing the cases before them in a given district. The Administration acknowledges that class actions can create the basis for universal injunctions, offering a moderate resolution to the Court. In such cases, if the parties can meet the standard for a national class, they can seek a national or universal injunction.

In today’s arguments (which I will be covering for Fox and on X), we can expect to hear from justices who have previously been critical of universal injunctions, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, called them “legally and historically dubious.”

Likewise, Justices Gorsuch and Alito have criticized such injunctions. In a prior dissent to an emergency filing in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in stating that the government “has a strong argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is ‘more burdensome than necessary to’ redress the plaintiff’s injuries.”

Many of us will be watching three members the most closely: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist, and we should see in his argument how he views the impact of such injunctions on the court system as a whole. He is very protective of the courts’ inherent authority but may also have misgivings about the scope of these orders.

During the Biden Administration, Justice Kagan has previously criticized universal injunctions. In an interview at Northwestern University Law School, Kagan flagged the “forum shopping” by litigants in filing cases before favorable courts:

“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right. In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Justice Barrett previously joined with Kavanaugh in stating that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction “is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”

The argument today will start at 10 am and I will be doing a running review of the arguments on X.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue the government’s case.

Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, will argue for the state and local governments and  Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, will argue for the private individuals and groups.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Chemical manufacturer 3M has entered into a settlement agreement with New Jersey to resolve claims accusing the company of contaminating water and other natural resources with PFAS substances, popularly known as “forever chemicals,” the state Attorney General’s office said in a May 13 statement.

The settlement, valued at up to $450 million and subject to court approval, is the “largest statewide PFAS settlement in New Jersey history,” said the statement. It resolves certain lawsuits filed by the state against the company in 2019.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are used in fabric, furniture, industrial products, and several household items. Known as “forever chemicals” because of their inability to degrade over time, these substances continue to accumulate in human beings and the environment.

The chemicals have been found in drinking water, livestock, and food packaging, and are linked to several adverse health issues such as cancers, endocrine disorders, developmental issues in fetuses, and negative impacts on reproduction and immune function.

The settlement amount will be paid over a period of 25 years, with around $275 million to $325 million scheduled to be paid between 2026 and 2034, and the remainder between 2035 and 2050.

The first lawsuit on the matter was a complaint filed in March 2019. It alleged that New Jersey sustained environmental damage from 3M’s role in contaminating the Chambers Works site in Pennsville and Carneys Point in Salem County.

The second lawsuit, also filed in March 2019, made similar claims against the company’s Parlin facility in Sayreville in Middlesex County.

A third complaint was filed against 3M and other manufacturers in May 2019, citing environmental damage and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This was related to the manufacture and sale of certain products that allegedly contained or broke down into PFAS chemicals.

With the settlement agreement, all these lawsuits are now resolved.

“For decades, 3M knew that their PFAS chemicals were forever contaminating the New Jersey environment. But they continued to pollute the environment and escape accountability. That ends now,” said Attorney General Matthew Platkin.

“New Jersey has some of the highest levels of PFAS in the country. That’s why New Jersey has been leading the national charge against corporate polluters who contaminate our drinking water and harm our state’s communities.”

The agreement also settles 3M’s liability related to a statewide PFAS directive issued in 2019 by New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Announcing the settlement in a May 12 statement, 3M said it had committed to ending all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 and was “on track to do so.”

“This agreement is another important step toward reducing risk and uncertainty on these legacy issues, allowing 3M to focus on its strategic priorities,” it said.

“In the agreement, the State specifically recognized that 3M ‘has taken actions, which other companies have not taken, to cease manufacturing’ PFAS.”

Tackling PFAS Contamination

3M has previously settled claims related to PFAS contamination. In June 2023, the company reached a $10.3 billion settlement with multiple public drinking water systems. The amount was set to be paid over a period of 13 years.

The company was caught up in another complaint in December when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against 3M and DuPont for allegedly misleading consumers about the safety of PFAS.

“Defendants marketed products containing harmful PFAS chemicals for over 70 years and were aware of the harmful effects of PFAS chemicals for over 50 years,” the state said in the lawsuit.

The Trump administration is taking action to combat PFAS contamination.

On April 28, Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), outlined certain actions the agency intends to take on the matter.

Such actions include establishing liability frameworks to ensure polluters pay for contamination and creating limitation guidelines for PFAS manufacturers.

“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” Zeldin said.

“This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water.

“With today’s announcement, we are tackling PFAS from all of EPA’s program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable.”