Clarence Thomas Delivers Knockout Line in Supreme Court Battle Over Nationwide Injunctions
“So We Survived Until the 1960s Without Universal Injunctions”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a searing one-liner during oral arguments on Thursday that sent shockwaves through legal and political circles:
“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.”
The comment came during arguments over nationwide injunctions—a controversial judicial tool increasingly used by lower courts to block presidential policies from coast to coast. The case at hand stems from legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, specifically aimed at ending the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to non-citizen immigrants, commonly referred to as “anchor babies.”
The Legal Showdown: Trump vs. the Nationwide Injunction Machine
At the center of the dispute is whether federal district court judges have the constitutional authority to impose nationwide injunctions, effectively paralyzing executive policy across all 50 states—even outside the case’s jurisdiction.
Representing the Trump Administration, Solicitor General John Sauer argued forcefully against such sweeping judicial actions, stating that remedies should be limited to the plaintiff and not extended to the entire nation. He noted that universal injunctions were rare before the 1960s and exploded only recently, particularly after 2007.
Justice Thomas’s dry but cutting remark—“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions”—was a not-so-subtle rebuke to modern legal activism.
The 14th Amendment Debate: Anchor Babies or Civil Rights Legacy?
This case is not just about judicial overreach—it’s about how the Constitution itself is being interpreted.
President Trump’s executive order and legal argument rest on a strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump and his legal allies argue that this clause was never intended to apply to the children of foreign nationals who enter the country illegally or temporarily.
In a fiery post on Truth Social Thursday morning, Trump wrote:
“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens… It had nothing to do with Illegal Immigration… It was about the babies of slaves.”
He emphasized that the 14th Amendment was written in the aftermath of the Civil War, specifically to protect formerly enslaved African Americans, not to incentivize border tourism or illegal entry.
What’s at Stake
This case could have monumental consequences:
- Nationwide injunctions could be severely limited or abolished—curbing the power of activist judges.
- The Supreme Court may finally define the scope of birthright citizenship in the modern immigration era.
- A Trump victory in court would bolster his push to restore border sovereignty and limit judicial interference in national immigration policy.
Conservatives argue that the abuse of nationwide injunctions has allowed a handful of unelected judges to override the will of voters and the authority of the executive branch. Four different judges have already blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship order before it could be implemented.
Conclusion: A Courtroom Moment with Lasting Impact
Clarence Thomas’s razor-sharp commentary cut through the legal fog and laid bare the absurdity of a judicial tool that didn’t even exist for the first 175 years of American law. In one sentence, he crystallized the constitutional argument:
If the nation survived without universal injunctions until the 1960s, how did they become “essential” overnight?
The Court’s final decision will shape not only the future of immigration law—but the limits of judicial power itself.
And if Thursday’s arguments are any indication, a major legal reset may be on the horizon.