New SCOTUS ruling on injunctions

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan

President Donald Trump called the ruling "a monumental decision" in remarks after the court split along ideological lines on his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.

www.nbcnews.com

The ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf


Justice Amy Coney writing for the majority "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," I would submit neither has the Constitution I understand that was not the question that the plaintiff asked. The birthright question will have to wait an I am sure the President is happy with this ruling. The progress on his executive orders have been and will be continuing.


JAC "We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which
is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,
not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this:
JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

In Him,

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don’t get what is so confusing about:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

 

[BBAS 64]

I don’t get what is so confusing about:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Good day,

As I understand it the Clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" supposedly the Senator that wrote this indicated that this would not apply to immigrants and then goes on to explain this as it relates to the properly to the slaves only.

The historical context and intent will be considered when the question is taken up by the Court I heard they would be ruling on this question in October.

In Him,

Bill

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The decision was not about birthrights. It concerned a district court setting the law for the whole country. We do not have 677 Supreme Courts with the power to overrule the Federal government. These judges exceeded their reach, and the SCOTUS smacked them down for trying to do it.

 

[durangodawood]

These judges exceeded their reach, and the SCOTUS smacked them down for trying to do it.

Nationwide injunctions definitely were within their authority. Now they arent.

 

[A New Dawn]

Nationwide injunctions definitely were within their authority. Now they arent.

One could say that obviously nationwide injunctions weren’t within their authority so SCOTUS smacked them down.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The decision was not about birthrights. It concerned a district court setting the law for the whole country.

A temporary injunction does not "set the law". It pauses action until the case can be decided.

From a practical perspective, this ruling violates the spirit of the Constitution, in my opinion. If the court believes that an action violates the constitution, then they have the authority to pause that action until a higher court has the chance to review it. However, pausing the action for just the plaintiff or just in a limited area is pretty meaningless if the action affects the entire country. For example, under this ruling, if a future administration were to draw up an executive order restricting ownership of "assault weapons," then you would need to file a lawsuit in every single district in order to challenge it - and you may well end up with a very piecemeal network of places where it may or may not be legal (temporarily) to own an "assault weapon". Then each of those cases would have to go to appeal, and then to the Supreme Court for a final decision. That does not seem reasonable to me.

 

[durangodawood]

One could say that obviously nationwide injunctions weren’t within their authority so SCOTUS smacked them down.

The system gave them that authority at the time. None of those judges are subject to disciplinary action or anything like that.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Nationwide injunctions definitely were within their authority. Now they arent.

No more Judge shopping. The democrats' last line of offense/defense has been removed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No more Judge shopping. The democrats' last line of offense/defense has been removed.

Oh, don't pretend for one second that "judge shopping" was exclusively done by Democrats. The number of cases challenging Biden-era actions in the 5th Circuit makes that quite clear.

 

[A New Dawn]

The system gave them that authority at the time. None of those judges are subject to disciplinary action or anything like that.

Not being subject to disciplinary action seems like a different issue than their scope of authority.

 

[durangodawood]

Not being subject to disciplinary action seems like a different issue than their scope of authority.

Its just an indicator we see in various professions when practitioners do things that arent allowed.

But this literally was allowed. It was an authority the system gave them. Scotus decided it was wise to withdraw that authority from them.

 

[A New Dawn]

Oh, don't pretend for one second that "judge shopping" was exclusively done by Democrats.

Maybe not, but the sheer amount of law fare taken by the left (and the judge shopping that goes along with it) against Trump by far exceeds the amount done by the right against ALL of their political rivals.

ERA: Since you edited your post while I was answering, let me just say that you can’t be serious about comparing Biden with Trump. Biden’s whole term was riddled with dementia, misuse of the autopen, ignoring rulings by SCOTUS, etc. lawsuits were filed against Trump on day 1, before he even did anything. Seriously, there is no comparison.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

One could say that obviously nationwide injunctions weren’t within their authority so SCOTUS smacked them down.

If it was "obviously outside of their authority," that begs the question of why something wasn't done about this earlier - after all, the Court has had the same makeup since 2022, and every justice in the majority opinion has been on the Court since at least 2020. There were roughly 30 nationwide injunctions during Biden's administration, and yet the Court said nothing about any of them. Curious.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Maybe not, but the sheer amount of law fare taken by the left (and the judge shopping that goes along with it) against Trump by far exceeds the amount done by the right against ALL of their political rivals.

Have you considered that this might be due to the fact that Trump has issued more, and more controversial (and dubiously-constitutional), executive orders than either Biden or Obama did?

ERA: Since you edited your post while I was answering, let me just say that you can’t be serious about comparing Biden with Trump. Biden’s whole term was riddled with dementia, misuse of the autopen, ignoring rulings by SCOTUS, etc. lawsuits were filed against Trump on day 1, before he even did anything. Seriously, there is no comparison.

Trump signed a huge pile of executive orders on day 1, which he telegraphed ahead of time (making plenty of time to prepare cases against them). I highly doubt any of the lawsuits against his administration preceded those orders.

 

[A New Dawn]

If it was "obviously outside of their authority," that begs the question of why something wasn't done about this earlier - after all, the Court has had the same makeup since 2022, and every justice in the majority opinion has been on the Court since at least 2020. There were roughly 30 nationwide injunctions during Biden's administration, and yet the Court said nothing about any of them. Curious.

I edited my previous response to you which you seem to not have seen, but in short, the ones against Biden were justified. Between his dementia that he was clearly suffering with from day 1, to the debacle in Afghanistan, to his mistreatment of the soldiers who died on his watch, to the misuse of the autopen, to his selling out of the country for profit, etc. compared to Trump where the left created fake evidence to base an impeachment on, and lawsuits being filed on day one before he even did anything. There is no comparison. The left has used lawfare to try to nullify the election.

 

[A New Dawn]

If it was "obviously outside of their authority," that begs the question of why something wasn't done about this earlier - after all, the Court has had the same makeup since 2022, and every justice in the majority opinion has been on the Court since at least 2020. There were roughly 30 nationwide injunctions during Biden's administration, and yet the Court said nothing about any of them. Curious.

I edited my previous response to you which you seem to not have seen, but in short, the ones against Biden were justified. Between his dementia that he was clearly suffering with from day 1, to the debacle in Afghanistan, to his mistreatment of the soldiers who died on his watch, to the misuse of the autopen, to his selling out of the country for profit, etc. compared to Trump where the left created fake evidence to base an impeachment on, and lawsuits being filed on day one before he even did anything. There is no comparison. The left has used lawfare to try to nullify the election

Have you considered that this might be due to the fact that Trump has issued more, and more controversial (and dubiously-constitutional), executive orders than either Biden or Obama did?

Trump signed a huge pile of executive orders on day 1, which he telegraphed ahead of time (making plenty of time to prepare cases against them). I highly doubt any of the lawsuits against his administration preceded those orders.

And Biden signed a bunch of executioners undoing everything Trump did. So what?

 

[durangodawood]

....but in short, the ones against Biden were justified......

And there goes your entire principled objection to nationwide injunctions.....

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I edited my previous response to you which you seem to not have seen, but in short, the ones against Biden were justified.

If nationwide injunctions exceed the authority of the district courts, it does not matter whether or not they are "justified" (which is a purely subjective evaluation). You either have the authority to do something or you do not.

And Biden signed a bunch of executioners undoing everything Trump did. So what?

"So what" indeed. I'm uncertain of what point you're trying to make here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A temporary injunction does not "set the law". It pauses action until the case can be decided.

From a practical perspective, this ruling violates the spirit of the Constitution, in my opinion. If the court believes that an action violates the constitution, then they have the authority to pause that action until a higher court has the chance to review it. However, pausing the action for just the plaintiff or just in a limited area is pretty meaningless if the action affects the entire country. For example, under this ruling, if a future administration were to draw up an executive order restricting ownership of "assault weapons," then you would need to file a lawsuit in every single district in order to challenge it - and you may well end up with a very piecemeal network of places where it may or may not be legal (temporarily) to own an "assault weapon". Then each of those cases would have to go to appeal, and then to the Supreme Court for a final decision. That does not seem reasonable to me.

That's the "sticky wicket"...

Local judges issuing nationwide injunctions is a relatively recent thing, and wasn't common American judicial practice for most of U.S. history, and was leveraging an ambiguity. And while injunctions are temporary, those pauses can derail a president's ability to deliver on time-sensitive matters. Obama learned that hard lesson with DAPA/DACA... that was certainly time sensitive (Obama was trying to get certain protections for undocumented people codified before he left office fearing what republicans would do if they won in 2016). A single District Judge in south Texas (Judge Hanen) derailed that

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/us/obama-immigration-policy-halted-by-federal-judge-in-texas.html

To quantify that with some numbers...

https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-03-20_R48467_58432a452add6955309586bc27316e39f5c73e10.html

Only 27 nationwide injunctions in the entire 20th century combined...

then 9 happened during George W Bush
then 19 happened during Obama
then a whopping 55 during Trump's first term.


It didn't take long for the forum shopping to go off the rails once people saw it was a way to effectively put the breaks on the opposing team's agenda (or stall it until they're back and office and can reverse it) by tying it up in the judicial branch for months on end.

If you look at a few of the high profile ones during Obama's term,
DACA... which took over a year from the point of the injunction, to the point where it reached the 4-4 deadlock in SCOTUS (effectively blocking it for the remainder of his term)

The ACA Contraception Mandate (subject of multiple injunctions), those took months and, in a few instances, over a year to resolve.



My issue isn't so much with the underlying concept of a nationwide injunction issued from the judicial branch -- there are certainly things that have nationwide implications, it's with the fact that a single lower level judge can make that call (and one that can be selectively chosen via forum shopping no less).

I feel like there needs to be another layer of some sort in that process.

For instance
Instead of it being
"One handpicked judge says they feel there's a problem, so now your agenda is tied up in 6 months of legal mumbo jumbo"

I'd rather see it be something to the effect of
"If you're seeking an injunction that's nationwide, then the case will be heard by a randomly selected district judge -- you don't get to cherry pick, if that judge feels there's merit to the injunction request, that judge's opinion will be reviewed by a second randomly selected district judge, and if they agree, then the injunction will be in effect"
(then the arduous appeal process could begin)


With the way they've been using it, it takes 2 hours and some paper work to block a president's agenda for 6-12 months.

The growth rate of those injunctions are concerning as well. To have very few for the majority of history, and then boom, now from 2000 to present, it's jumping up by 2.5x from president to president -- if we stay on that pattern, we'll end up with a situation where the courts get so bogged down, they'll be litigating things from presidents who haven't been in office for 10 years.