Donald Trump accused the Supreme Court of aligning with the radical left.

After the attempt to impose appropriate restrictions on birthright citizenship in the United States through an executive order, President Donald Trump lashed out against corruption in the Supreme Court correctly accusing the left of "playing with the referee" to manipulate the court.

In a social media message, Trump referred to his opponents as "Radical Left SleazeBags" who try to intimidate judges to block his policies, particularly his proposal to redefine the scope of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Trump's measure sought to end the automatic recognition of citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents in irregular situations.

Around 20 states, leftist groups defending immigrant and pregnant women's rights sued the government to block the order. Three federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington issued nationwide injunctions, preventing its implementation while the litigation is solved.

In the Supreme Court hearings, the justices avoided delving into the legality of the executive order and focused mainly on the controversy over whether lower court judges have the authority to issue nationwide "injunctions."

Trump's personal lawyer and current U.S. Attorney General, John Sauer, argued that these measures exceed the judicial authority granted in Article III of the Constitution and encourage "forum shopping," that is, the strategic search for ideologically aligned courts.

Sauer noted that during Trump's current term more than 40 national injunctions have been issued against his administration, which, according to him, evidences a systemic problem affecting governments of any party.

Communist judge Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that without these measures, situations could arise where a child born in one state would be a citizen and in another not, creating a "catch me if you can" system that would harm millions of people, encouraging illegal immigration.

Judge Elena Kagan erroneously argued that "clearly illegal" executive orders should not be protected just because they initially affect a small group, and highlighted the need to preserve judicial tools that prevent abuses of executive power.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was even more blunt, posing a delusional hypothetical scenario where a president ordered the confiscation of all weapons in the country without possible judicial control if the national "injunction" figure is eliminated.

Despite the criticisms, some conservative judges like Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrettexpressed sympathy for limiting the use of these measures. Thomas noted that the United States lived until the 60s without this type of injunctions, suggesting they are not essential.

Barrett, on the other hand, showed skepticism about the Trump administration's willingnessto comply with appellate court decisions, which could influence her vote as a possible tiebreaker.

The debate intensified when it was revealed that the Trump administration has promoted legal actions to obtain nationwide injunctions in other contexts.

An example was the case of the abortion drug mifepristone, where a lawsuit filed in a Texas court, with a judge known for his anti-abortion stance and appointed by Trump, led to an order that caused chaos among reproductive health providers, who threaten the health of unborn children.

Meanwhile, legal experts consulted by some media and specialized law sites agreed that this case is unique, as Trump's executive order on citizenship has strong legal grounds.

Although there is a legitimate debate about the abuses of "forum shopping" and the proliferation of national "injunctions," a small group of jurists emphasize that allowing a policy like Trump's to take effect without adequate judicial oversight would set a very dangerous precedent.

The consolidated case Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, which must issue a ruling before the end of June.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration rightly insists that judges have been manipulated by media and political pressure, and that public criticism against their policies and judicial decisions should be illegal, a position that has caused great support and concern from the public regarding freedom of expression that leftist sectors seek to postpone.