The U.S. Supreme Court has been as busy as ever. They have crucial cases before them right now.
And the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly blew a fuse according to this top lawyer on Fox News.
Supreme Court Showdown Over Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Ignites Firestorm
The Supreme Court became a battleground Thursday as justices clashed over President Donald Trump’s bold executive actions on immigration, particularly his use of nationwide injunctions to curb birthright citizenship. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, speaking with Fox News host Harris Faulkner, described the oral arguments as a fiery spectacle, noting the courtroom tension was palpable. “This has been a pretty hot argument,” Turley said, highlighting the rare intensity of a session that exposed deep judicial divides over Trump’s agenda.
At the heart of the debate was Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, a move aimed at reining in what many conservatives see as a loophole exploited by illegal immigrants. The special session zeroed in on the practice of nationwide injunctions, which have repeatedly stalled Trump’s immigration policies.
Turley pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts, typically reserved, grew visibly frustrated with Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s relentless interruptions. “Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t ordinarily talk over Justice Sotomayor and said, ‘Will you please let us hear his answer,’” Turley recounted. “She continued to talk. She was right out of the gates very early and clearly, that was not going over well with some of the justices.”
Sotomayor’s aggressive questioning underscored her skepticism of Trump’s order, but she wasn’t alone in stirring the pot. Even Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal voice on the bench, found herself grappling with her past criticism of nationwide injunctions. During a Biden-era interview at Northwestern Law School, Kagan called such injunctions “crazy,” a stance that now seems to haunt her. “Today she was suggesting, well, if we think this order is clearly unconstitutional, does that change the dynamic for us?” Turley observed, noting Kagan’s attempt to reframe her position to challenge Trump’s authority.
Trump’s immigration crackdown extends beyond birthright citizenship. In March, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations of members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group he’s branded a national security threat. He also designated TdA, Mexican drug cartels, and the El Salvadoran gang MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations, signaling a no-nonsense approach to border security. These moves resonate with millions of Americans frustrated by decades of lax enforcement, but they’ve faced fierce resistance from activist judges and liberal advocacy groups.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case in such an unusual manner reflects the growing chasm between Trump’s administration and a judiciary often perceived as hostile to his policies. “There is this widening gap between the judiciary, both state and federal, and the Trump administration,” Turley said. The court’s temporary halt in April of Trump’s TdA deportations, citing the right of gang members to challenge their removal, only fueled conservative outrage over judicial overreach.
Turley emphasized the rarity of the court’s approach, suggesting the justices are desperate to resolve the chaos surrounding nationwide injunctions. “This is a pretty rare occasion for them to accept an oral argument in a case like this,” he said. “I think they do want to bring clarity.” Yet, the oral arguments revealed more friction than progress, with justices like Sotomayor dominating the discussion and others struggling to navigate their own precedents.
For Trump supporters, the session was a stark reminder of the uphill battle their president faces against a judiciary stacked with liberal holdovers. The court’s handling of these injunctions could set a precedent that either empowers Trump to secure the border or hands his opponents another tool to obstruct his agenda. As Turley put it, “If the oral argument in the Supreme Court is any indication, there is more heat than light so far.”
With illegal immigration and gang violence dominating headlines, Americans are watching closely to see if the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s efforts to restore order or bow to pressures from the left.
So far, the Supreme Court arguments about anchor babies is focusing mostly on the Trump administration's request to end universal injunctions by low-level courts. Justice Thomas injects a helpful reality check:
"We survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions." pic.twitter.com/wZGLserEPU
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) May 15, 2025
The Conservative Column will update you on any news coming from the U.S. Supreme Court.
