The May 16 article titled “Supreme Court could uphold birthright citizenship” raised an issue unrelated to the case itself, which was, when or if federal district court judges can issue injunctions for the entire country to pause implementation of presidential executive orders until the cases are settled at the highest level.

It seems to me that there is a possible way to resolve this important question:

Cases that involve interpretations of laws passed by Congress could go forward. (Not that I think many of this president’s order should be implemented, but it is Congress which has the authority to correct the president, by passing a law clarifying or amending the law). Then the judge would not be “making law,” as they are often accused of doing, but allowing the process to be carried out.

In cases, where the claim is that the presidential order is unconstitutional, the question is whether the president or Congress has the authority to change the Constitution (which they do not), and the issue clearly affects all the districts in the country. If no judge in any district opposed the decision of the judge issuing the injunction, then the Supreme Court would not need to be involved, which, would lighten their case load.

If the question is clear, then the case should be settled at the level of the Appeals Court, when several judges have ruled and all agree.

This is not ideal, but without some guidance, the district courts would have no recourse to stop blatant abuses of presidential power unless a majority of the Supreme Court justices allow District Court judges discretion in all cases, which the most conservative justices are unlikely to do.

Judith Truesdell

Greenfield