Chief Justice John Roberts dropped the gavel on Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s interruptions during a heated Supreme Court showdown. On May 15, 2025, the court tackled birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions, with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer under fire. Sotomayor’s rapid-fire questions met Roberts’ cool restraint, signaling order in the chaos.
Breitbart reported that the session saw Sauer argue that universal injunctions overstep lower courts’ constitutional bounds, a stance that sparked fierce debate. Sotomayor, known for her verbal volleys, repeatedly cut into Sauer’s responses.
Her persistence drew a rare rebuke from Roberts, who demanded she let Sauer finish. “Can I hear the rest of his answer?” Roberts interjected, a polite but pointed jab at Sotomayor’s overreach.
The moment underscored tensions in a court divided over judicial power. Sauer, undeterred, pressed that only the Supreme Court should wield such sweeping authority in rare cases.
Sotomayor grilled Sauer, claiming he argued no court could stop an executive’s universal violations. “You are claiming that not just the Supreme Court, but both the Supreme Court and no lower court, can stop an executive,” she said. Sauer swiftly clarified, conceding courts can act for specific plaintiffs, not blanket rulings.
“We are not claiming that because we’re conceding that there could be an appropriate case only in class,” Sauer responded.
Sotomayor’s attempt to interrupt again—“But I hear that–”—was promptly silenced by Roberts. The exchange revealed her eagerness to dominate, countered by Roberts’ insistence on fairness.
Sauer argued that universal injunctions “transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority” and wreak practical havoc. They force judges into “rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” he said, a dig at activist judges itching to play policymaker. His point landed: such rulings often come from lone, partisan judges with oversized egos.
The justices, showing little unity, peppered Sauer with questions about nationwide restraining orders. They zeroed in on President Trump’s birthright citizenship policy, a lightning rod for judicial activism. Sauer warned that these injunctions halt debate, block planning, and undermine electoral mandates.
“They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere,” Sauer noted, highlighting the unfair burden on administrations.
Universal injunctions flip the appellate review hierarchy, creating a judicial free-for-all. The result? A mess of conflicting judgments that sow chaos instead of clarity.
Sauer pushed for narrower injunctions, limited to specific plaintiffs, to let issues “percolate” through courts and public discourse. This approach respects the Constitution’s limits, unlike the judicial power grabs Sotomayor seemed keen to defend. Her interruptions suggested a preference for activism over deliberation.
The lack of consensus among the nine justices was palpable, with each probing the costs and benefits of sweeping injunctions. Some seemed sympathetic to Sauer’s argument that they stifle administration efforts. Others, like Sotomayor, appeared to champion broader judicial intervention, consequences be damned.
“They create the ongoing risk of conflicting judgments,” Sauer warned, a nod to the legal quagmire universal injunctions invite. His logic exposed the folly of judges acting as unelected overlords. Yet Sotomayor’s persistence hinted at a judiciary eager to flex its muscle.
Roberts’ intervention was a masterclass in restraint, reining in Sotomayor’s overzealous questioning. His calm directive ensured Sauer’s voice wasn’t drowned out by ideological fervor. It was a reminder: the court isn’t a stage for grandstanding.
Sauer’s broader argument—that universal injunctions exceed Article III powers—struck at the heart of judicial overreach. Lower courts, he argued, lack the authority to issue rulings that bind the nation. This stance aligns with a conservative push to curb activist judges who fancy themselves legislators.
The debate over birthright citizenship, tied to Trump’s policy updates, amplified the stakes. Nationwide injunctions, Sauer contended, derail the government’s ability to implement voter-backed mandates. Sotomayor’s interruptions only underscored the left’s desperation to obstruct at every turn.