Article

2025-06-27 -Land of the Free

Big Supreme Court Win For President Trump: No More Universal Preliminary Injunctions

[Julie Kelly] The court's opinion in the administration's challenge to broad use of preliminary injunctions is a big win for the president and for separate of powers but unknown consequences are ahead.

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the use of universal preliminary injunctions—court orders that extend the halt on a certain policy from one jurisdiction to cover the entire country—against the president.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the court determined that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." Further, the court concluded that "nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to use them."

The opinion is here: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc.

Posted by Besoeker 2025-06-27 14:47|| || Front Page|| ||Comments [106 views ] Top

#1 There is hope.

Posted by Super Hose 2025-06-27 15:00|| 2025-06-27 15:00|| Front Page || Comments Top

#2 Sounds like Judge Whoopi is having a no good day.

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-06-27 15:42|| 2025-06-27 15:42|| Front Page || Comments Top

, the court determined that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."

It is decades past time when Congress awakes from its stupor and actually exercises its authority to regulate federal courts. This fact consistently gets zero or nearly zero mention in media comments or online legal oriented blogs. Shh. Be sure not to discuss this with anyone. Above all, don't mention it to the Congress critters about to run for relection 3 Nov 2026.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2025-06-27 16:43|| 2025-06-27 16:43|| Front Page || Comments Top

#4 Amy Coney Barrett Utterly Humiliated Ketanji Brown Jackson:

Barrett, writing for the majority, didn’t just settle for a routine legal reasoning. She delivered a withering rebuke to Jackson’s dissent, slicing straight through the hollow rhetoric and exposing her radical rewrite of two centuries of constitutional law for what it was: ideological fantasy posing as legal reasoning. She didn’t hesitate, didn’t hedge, and delivered the blow with unflinching clarity:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.

Ouch.

As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned.

Ooooh!

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.

Bam!

JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.”

Brutal, isn't it?

Barrett exposed Jackson’s dissent as nothing more than a blatant call for judicial supremacy, an idea the Framers explicitly rejected. She reminded the court and the country that the answer to executive overreach isn’t for judges to crown themselves kings. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett explained, "But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so."

Posted by trailing wife 2025-06-27 17:21|| 2025-06-27 17:21|| Front Page || Comments Top

#5 "Did you read that smackdown that woman wrote?"
"What is a woman?"

Posted by Frank G 2025-06-27 19:40|| 2025-06-27 19:40|| Front Page || Comments Top

#6 ^ Snark of the Day

Posted by Matt 2025-06-27 20:04|| 2025-06-27 20:04|| Front Page || Comments Top

#7 Too late ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2025-06-27 20:14|| 2025-06-27 20:14|| Front Page || Comments Top

#8 "Black What is a Girl Magic!"

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-06-27 20:24|| 2025-06-27 20:24|| Front Page || Comments Top

#9 Amy Coney Barrett tears into liberal fellow Supreme Court justice over birthright citizenship

Posted by Skidmark 2025-06-27 20:40|| 2025-06-27 20:40|| Front Page || Comments Top

#10 Senator Kennedy on universal injunctions

“Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up the concept of universal injunctions. If you disagree with a President or Congress, fill out a hurt feelings report—but you can’t put their actions on hold because you don’t like them.”

Posted by Matt 2025-06-27 21:05|| 2025-06-27 21:05|| Front Page || Comments Top

21:09 newc
21:05 Matt
21:04 newc
20:43 Skidmark
20:40 Skidmark
20:39 swksvolFF
20:26 swksvolFF
20:24 swksvolFF
20:14 Frank G
20:09 Skidmark
20:08 Skidmark
20:04 Matt
20:02 Skidmark
20:00 Skidmark
19:52 Skidmark
19:51 Skidmark
19:50 Skidmark
19:44 Skidmark
19:40 Frank G
18:58 swksvolFF
18:08 SteveS
18:02 NN2N1
17:57 SteveS
17:50 SteveS