Federal Gridlock

Hi,

I am trapped. All it takes to make me want to stay in Seattle forever and ignore the winter is a bold cup of coffee on sunny morning in the spring. My SADS has Stockholm Syndrome.

First time reader? Consider subscribing by clicking the button below (its free) 👇

Have a topic or story you’d like to see me write about and react to? Drop me a suggestion at [email protected] 

Seattle Soundbites

• Sound Transit’s light rail connection between Bellevue and Seattle is delayed… again. This time until early 2026. One day we will get the trains we deserve. One day.

• Seattle City Council is debating a new ethics policy that may impact if and when members need to recuse themselves from a vote due to financial conflicts.

Government Paralysis Meets The Supreme Court

Since taking office, Donald Trump has already issued over 150 executive orders, a record in the first 100 days. Biden issued 167 during his single term, while Obama signed 276 across his two terms (see every president’s count here).

Many of these executive orders are frequently followed by a predictable headline: "District Court issues nationwide injunction on XYZ Executive Order."

This exact scenario is before the Supreme Court this week. One of Trump’s very first orders’s is an attempt to reinterpret birthright citizenship, a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution

The order aims to curtail illegal immigration by targeting what opponents call "birth tourism" and critics of immigration refer to as "anchor babies" – children born on U.S. soil who automatically become citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status.

Trump's executive order was quickly paused by several courts, igniting yet another firestorm of litigation that has now reached our nation's highest court.

But the Supreme Court is currently not hearing arguments on the merits of Trump’s case vs birthright citizenship (meaning, whether his order is even constitutional). Instead they are grappling with an important technical question: how narrow or wide in scope should the judiciary’s power be when it comes to using nationwide injunctions to stop executive orders.

This case aside, nationwide injunctions can be problematic. Allowing a single district judge to halt federal policy across all 50 states is a very influential power; one that falls firmly in the “checks” column of our system’s checks and balances.

However, reducing injunctive power could prove equally problematic, as several Justices noted during this week's oral arguments. If injunctions were significantly limited, it could create a scenario where every individual affected by a government order would need to file separate lawsuits against the government to vindicate their rights, rather than having a single injunction provide relief to all affected parties.

Symptom of a Larger Disease

Let’s take this a step further. I believe this loop of sweeping injunctions on executive orders are a symptom of a far greater plague riddling the US: over decades, our government has systematically crippled its own ability to legislatively function.

Congress has developed an obsession with procedural hurdles and partisan gridlock rather than substantive legislation. The filibuster, a tool sharpened over centuries to provide the minority party negotiating leverage, has become a routine obstacle, as it requires a 60-vote supermajority for almost any significant bill.

The result? Presidents of both parties have turned to executive orders as their primary method to implement campaign promises, circumventing a paralyzed Congress. But these executive orders exist on shaky legal ground, vulnerable to judicial review and the nationwide injunctions that follow.

The question in front of the Supreme Court is a fascinating one given the power dynamics at play. Rather than ruling on the merits of Trump’s order to reinterpret birthright citizenship, the Justices instead are deciding how much power their own branch of government should have.

In hearings this week, the Justices seem outwardly perplexed by why the Trump administration decided to use Birthright Citizenship, a concept clearly articulated in the Constitution and upheld over two centuries, to fight these injunctions. But alas, here we are.

One of the issues of these injunctions is rooted in what is essentially judicial forum shopping: the practice of picking which district you want your case to be heard in, to get the ruling your side desires.

When Republicans are in power, Democrats often use the progressive district courts in San Francisco. When Democrats are in power, Republicans go to a highly conservative district in West Texas.

These injunctions ARE important for stopping clear constitutional violations like Trump’s order. Yet, like most issues, it sits on a spectrum of gray.

The United States is one of the most litigious nations in history. Our government is disproportionately composed of lawyers who excel at creating processes and rules. But this very trait has transformed our democracy into a procedural quagmire where policy that could positively influence people drowns in a sea of technicalities.

When legislation stalls, executive action steps in. When executive action faces injunctions, courts become the de facto policymakers. We’re in a loop.

So the current battle over nationwide injunctions reflects a deeper constitutional problem: a government so entangled in its own procedural web that it can no longer respond effectively to the needs of its citizens. Until we address this systemic dysfunction, we'll continue throwing band aids on symptoms while governmental paralysis endures.

The court is expected to issue a decision in late June or early July.

Local Happenings

Bite of Greece Seattle 2025: A 3-day festival on Seattle’s Capitol Hill featuring traditional street-style lunch and dinner, handmade Greek pastries, crafts and imported deli items for sale in the marketplace. You will find me there!