In a dramatic display of judicial indignation, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer took to the Supreme Court bench on Thursday, condemning what he termed a “judicial insurrection” aimed at undermining President Trump’s agenda for his second term.
Sauer pointed out that since January, federal judges have issued a staggering 40 nationwide injunctions, effectively putting the brakes on significant executive actions, including the administration’s contentious initiative to abolish birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.
Previously reported by , a California woman has been sentenced to over three years in prison for orchestrating a scheme that exploited Chinese birth tourism.
The Department of Justice detailed the case in a press release following the convictions:
Evidence presented during a four-day trial revealed that from at least January 2012 to March 2015, Liu and Dong operated a maternity house in Rancho Cucamonga. They leased apartment units in Southern California to offer temporary lodging and various services to pregnant women from China who visited the United States to give birth, thereby ensuring their children would gain U.S. citizenship. Typically, after one or two months postpartum, these women would return to China.
The services provided by Liu and Dong included assistance in obtaining visas for entry into the United States, guidance on customs, housing arrangements, and transportation within the U.S., as well as help in securing legal documentation for their customers’ children.
Moreover, Liu and Dong advised clients on how to conceal their pregnancies from immigration authorities. They were aware—or willfully ignorant—of the fact that their customers submitted false information on visa applications to enter the U.S.
In general, these applications misrepresented the trip’s purpose as tourism instead of childbirth and minimized the intended length of stay from months to mere days or weeks. Additionally, the stated accommodation did not reflect the actual maternity hotel run by the defendants.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Trump’s case on birthright citizenship, centering on the issue of nationwide injunctions.
The Trump Administration had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit lower courts from issuing such broad injunctions.
Some conservative justices expressed doubt about the extensive reach of these injunctions, with Justice Clarence Thomas remarking on their rarity prior to the 1960s.
Sauer contended that these injunctions hinder the “percolation” of legal questions through the judicial system and impose uneven burdens on the government.
Sauer: A cascade of such universal injunctions has ensued. Since January 20th, district courts have issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, 35 of which have originated from just five judicial districts. This issue transcends party lines and has persisted through the last five presidential administrations.
Universal injunctions exceed the judicial authority delineated in Article III, which is supposed to address the specific injuries of the complaining party.
They violate the traditional limits of equitable authority and lead to a myriad of practical complications. These injunctions obstruct the careful examination of new and complex legal issues, promote rampant forum shopping, and compel judges to make hurried, high-stakes decisions with minimal information. They bypass Rule 23 by offering all the benefits without the corresponding burdens of class certification. They create an imbalance, mandating that the government must win everywhere while plaintiffs may find victory anywhere. Furthermore, they disrupt the usual hierarchy of appellate review.
These actions also heighten the risk of conflicting judgments and impose additional strain on this Court’s emergency docket.
As Justice Powell indicated, they foster “repeated and essentially head-on confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government,” thus undermining the Constitution’s delicate balance of powers.
LISTEN:
️JUDICIAL INSURRECTION
Solicitor General John Sauer discusses the judicial insurrection, highlighting the forty nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration thus far. He explains why such injunctions represent an overreach of judicial power.
“Universal… pic.twitter.com/VXigYnlXLM
— Tyler O’Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) May 15, 2025
Since resuming his presidency on January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump has encountered an unprecedented barrage of legal challenges from far-left judges and activist groups intent on derailing his second term.
Trump has faced 239 legal challenges from what he describes as activist judges, with only 8 cases resolved.
Eric Teetsel from the American Renewal Center noted that during his initial term from 2017 to 2021, Trump was slapped with 64 injunctions, a stark contrast to the mere 14 against President Biden.
