I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely.
The universal injunction has been abolished until the next Democratic administration ("Universal *writs*, on the other hand ...")
But wait….. they still havent rules on maga judge Kazmaryks nationwide injunction for the abortion pill…. So will they let that one go through….
Oh of course. That's how Calvinball works, only nationwide injunctions in favor of stuff they like are allowed.
How often have judges in the lowest levels of courts relied on higher levels to file universal injunctions? Could this result in the courts (the initial start points) for each specific case to file injunctions since the problem was universality and not injunctions-whatsoever?
What about all the nationwide injunctions under the Biden administration? Do those go away?
And they haven’t ruled on maga judge kasmaryks nationwide injunction on the abortion pill.
How did they do nationwide injunctions to stop some of Biden’s agenda then?
📌
Yes. Injunctions now only apply to the individual who took the case to court instead of the entire class of people harmed by the action blocked by the injunction. Each victim must have their own case. Add to that... the BBBill has a clause in it that makes it VERY expensive to sue for protection.
We didn't do it before is a terrible argument. Should we ban light bulbs because they didn't exist in the 1700s?
I mean, doesn’t this apply to federal EOs too…? Can they sue to make federal EOs not be a thing for this same reason?
It's 2025. The world has become much smaller, but obviously these fossils are back in the 19th Century.
Could a state bring a claim & receive a statewide injunction? Or class action with several states opting in & allowing only the ruling to affect those states? Or class action that only applies to those individuals that choose to opt in? Creates massive variance potentially within a single state
If a state is one of the plaintiffs, would the courts possibly be able to put in place at least a state-wide injunction?
Non-lawyer here: please, please tell us what that might look like: “The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely.” Can you elaborate?
It’s going to be really fucking funny when you’re stripped of citizenship and deported
Yeah I’ll roll the dice on that 🙄
Oh you just don’t think anything like that can ever happen *to you*. I look forward to working to prove you very wrong!
I know you do. Because like most modern day leftists you’re a maladjusted neoracist filled with hate and envy.
It’s very funny how you think it’s racist when you get stripped of citizenship and deported but not when other people do. Hmmm!
Enjoy reading about yourself. www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwho...
Sir, please show me your papers.
Lower courts need to start doing injunctions on individuals instead of universal to overwhelm the supreme court
What's funny is Kavanaugh's concurrence predicts exactly this, he has no idea how the system will function after this decision, but he's completely fine with it anyway
“As with most disputed issues, there are arguments on both sides.” Absolute brain genius insight from the conservative majority. A masterclass
So let me see if I understand this ruling. If trump issued an executive order allowing federal law enforcement to kill undocumented people, a federal judge could issue an injunction to prevent the killing of only the specific people who brought the case to the court? If true, that's insane.
They effectively abolished universal injunctions that affect this regime, but they didn't abolish universal unjunctions that affected the Biden administration. That itself is very telling about who this SCOTUS actually serves & it's NOT the U.S. Constitution.
When it’s constantly 6/3 we know it’s political. They waited for this day
I might be misunderstanding something, but: It's true that universal injunctions were not a part of the original "founding vision," but nor was a federal judiciary, so what game are we playing here? This is one of those moments where Originalism is just so obviously full of shit.
Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed. This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases.
Possible weird question, but, when there's a democrat in the White House again, is there a potential path for someone to bring a case to reinstate the ability? Or legislation that could be passed?
You presume free elections again ??
I mean this last one had a lot of evidence of fraud.
It had some strange results but not seen evidence of actual fraud and aware of the case in NY
There have been a bunch of voting machine shenanigans especially in the seven swing states.
Irrelevant. Authoritarians are in power now. If there were problems with results it was incumbent on Harris not to concede in like 15 minutes.
I have literally criticized Harris for rolling over so easily, but go off. Why are you defending an obvious sham?
Understanding it's waaaaaaaay too late to complain about this election interference stuff because Dems are quietly abdicating control, and me thinking it's great are two differnt things.
I've been complaining the whole time about sus shit, while there's not much legal to be done about it, the data shows interference and association with the same companies that are now being rewarded for having pushed code updates and disappeared without a trace. They burned ballot boxes in public.
The only silver lining is that a huge body of case law will rapidly develop in which the DOJ is constantly losing.
🤞🤞🤞🤞
it does not seem "case law" holds a lot of weight in our current system, my friend
And that many nationwide injunctions were used in the past.
Too many lower court Trump judges for this to be true.
They are losing though. In high numbers.
Not for long
They’re going to have to comply with whatever farkakte ruling SCOTUS decides is the law of the moment.
The Trump administration has repeatedly been losing cases, even before Trump appointed judges. The Supreme Court is the most twisted corrupt ever
When circuits differ, the USSC is more likely to take it up. However, at least while we have a remainder of sane law, whole circuits can easily now become birthright safe zones, and internal migrations will occur in accordance.
Doesn't matter they have no authority to stop the Executive
Something is rotten in #WorstSCOTUSEver While over 90% of Judges across America rule AGAINST Trump In over 90% of their rulings, these 6 Christo-Fascist MFers vote FOR Trump The ruling “is an existential threat to the Rule of Law” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson democracyforward.org/updates/trum...
Supreme Court limits nationwide orders that have blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship ban The only recourse is to increase monthly donations to ACLU 10-fold. Do it now or hold your complicit conscience in shame for millions of innocent lives to endure exile, suffering, incarceration, and genocide
Revise the injunction to exclude only the Lincoln Memorial location, so it isn't "universal".
as absurd as it sounds since there's ltrl legal reason for delineating federal rights by court district, I feel like reissuing the injunctions to only cover those within the district court's remit would be an appropriately "non-universal" response to this asinine ruling.
But on the flip side it means they are about to be faced with having to respond to thousands more cases that will be filed to challenge any one law, regulation, or EO.
Yep unless they charge exorbitant fees to simply file or something. Which seems probable.
My judicial circuit hasn’t ruled on the Biden Student Loan policy. So where does that stand?
@threadreaderapp.bsky.social unroll please?
Terrifying
They’re creating a king.
What the hell
ROBERTS COURT WANTS US ALL IN HELL
This is really fucked up!
Won't that also result in an explosion of appeals going to SCOTUS?
And just like that a key weapon in Democrat/leftist/MSM lawfare has been taken away. Considering you’re a rabid, neoracist ideologue masquerading as a neutral observer, your tears are understandable.
Worst bot ever.
man shut up you weird ass troll 😂 you don’t have a voice in this conversation because we’ve all heard what you sociopaths think every day for the last eight years. “considering you’re a” bro just shut up you made this account to whine at people who are just block you and forget you ever existed 😂
Don't engage just block.
you’re so right 🙏
It's really what has made bluesky better than the hellsite. Block early and often keeps the trolls from staying.
tbh I think I’m the superior troll in most cases and if I’m the only person they are getting in their replies they’re not gonna want to stay 😂 but that’s probably mostly my ego. I just like to bully jerkwads 😅
I struggled with it too when I migrated here during the invite only days, for similar reasons. It's a tough habit to break.
Will this lead to a big increase in court cases throughout the country as people seek the same relief in each circuit court? If so, not only do resources get wasted but it helps Trump’s common strategy of delays when it suits him.
Yep, no question.
Someone on another site said that class action suits would be somewhat of a counter. Does that sound right or is it too soon to tell?
I think that is likely the right solution but it still would only apply to those in the class. The question becomes how expansive can you create the class? Could lead to the injunction applying to only some states or some individuals
So while it seems like it's better than nothing it's probably only a partial solution. I ran across a post earlier that said we need to ramp up donations to the ACLU and other organizations fighting for the rights of undocumented immigrants. Thank you for your response.
Not the most pressing of matters, but doesn't this mean the SAVE student loan plan rightoids hated has to go through now?
Please explain to me with this ruling what the need for a federal court is now if it is just acting as a state court.
Supporters of this decision will say: just seek class certification. But (1) the court has spent decades making certification harder and (2) this will give judges and justices a technical tool--declining class cert--to block cases that they want to kill, but don't want to be seen killing.
And Dems will do a strongly worded letter and not a damn thing. They didn’t run on or try to do anything about citizens unities. Now this.
So. Real question- when courts used these injunctions in prior administrations, is there recourse for the folks that were effected?
NO white person in America can prove they are citizens because their ancestors just arrived, declared their name and went on with their lives (with lots of them never becoming citizens) but their kids were citizens upon birth in this country. This SCOTUS doesn't give a fuck about that either.
@normeisen.bsky.social care to comment on this ⬆️
Curious, has Norm defended the DVD ruling or something?
It's time to Pelican Brief the SCOTUS.
So Matt Kacsmaryk's rulings stand?
Just incredible hypocrisy, given the number of these that came from extreme conservative judge Kacsmarmk’s bench, with nary a peep about it from GOP majority SCOTUS. Blatant unconstitutional ideological partisanship that is effectively destroying our equitable balance of powers and our democracy.
More likely confirmed its previous murders of equal protection and the remainder of the 14th Amendment - which honestly began long bf either Torquemada Sam or Trump.
Why stills ray roads don't go to prison ever but why gonna still bread go fore a life time to prison all last 200 years .
Revolt, Rebel and Resist. Revolution is the final solution.
Exactly this question!! What can we do??!!
We got to get as many Democrats elected in 2026 as possible. I think it's our only hope.
