Supreme Court ends nationwide injunctions from district judges

[tvc184]

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.

In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.

Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 

So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.

 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.

It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.

Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.

[thetragichippy]

On 6/27/2025 at 5:12 PM, tvc184 said:

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.

In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.

Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.

The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 

So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.

 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.

It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.

Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.

This was a good ruling and fair. 

Question, they are saying now they can do a "class action" and get the same result.  Is that going to be more difficult to do? 

[OlDawg]

41 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

This was a good ruling and fair. 

Question, they are saying now they can do a "class action" and get the same result.  Is that going to be more difficult to do? 

Class actions require a few extra steps. Yes, can get same results. But, it will be interesting to see a court certify harm to a group of ‘future anchor babies’ since their parents are breaking the law. Create a law for those breaking the law by entering the country illegally? I could see the court easily certifying a class action for those here now. Especially, one of the judges that already ruled the EO unconstitutional. Future? Not quite sure that will fly. Will definitely take some twisting.

How would the court define and certify harm to anyone from anywhere at any time in the future who happens to have a baby while on U.S. soil?

Would seem overly broad for a certified class action.

This question will be at SCOTUS again this fall as Bondi said. Meanwhile, it will stop at a judgement from an appeals court since SCOTUS doesn’t return until October.

My thoughts.

[tvc184]

35 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

This was a good ruling and fair. 

Question, they are saying now they can do a "class action" and get the same result.  Is that going to be more difficult to do? 

Yes but it can be done.

 There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.

There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.

So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?

I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action. 

[OlDawg]

53 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Yes but it can be done.

 There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.

There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.

So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?

I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action. 

I'm leaning more and more to the fact that--as people begin to understand the real idiocy of universal birthright citizenship for people in the country illegally as class actions are attempted to be defined--more may understand this wasn't the true intent of the 14th or the Nationality code. SCOTUS may have given us a bigger clue than initially thought.

A court would basically have to say their ruling is a pardon for breaking another law. Almost a chicken and egg scenario. Break the law, then get rewarded by the court system that's supposed to uphold the law? Are immigration laws any less important than the 14th?

To me, anyone who says, “Because it’s in the Constitution” is just being intellectually lazy.

Or, they really do have an agenda to change the electorate.

(Of course, I dealt more with contract law than this other stuff. So, no expert by any means.)