- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supreme Court Set To End Era Of Nationwide Judicial Injunctions
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:39 pm
The days of rogue district court judges hijacking executive authority may finally be numbered. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a consolidated case, Trump v. CASA, which challenges lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. Despite the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch on immigration matters, three district judges issued sweeping nationwide injunctions halting the order.
Now, the highest court may have the chance to rein in judicial overreach and restore balance between the branches of government.
Since President Trump began his second term, liberal judges have weaponized nationwide injunctions against his administration an astonishing 17 times in just the first few months — and that's only counting through late March 2025. This is nothing new, of course.
Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration.
In recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, argued in a 2020 concurring opinion that injunctions are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."
He said the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions" and that the court must address them.
He also noted that nationwide injunctions mean that plaintiffs can shop around for the judge that is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause.
"Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide," Gorsuch wrote.
Even Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberal justices, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the blatant judge-shopping tactics used by plaintiffs to game the system.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue because Joe Biden's outgoing Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, also filed a brief in December 2024 asking the Supreme Court to limit these broad orders despite knowing Trump would benefit from the decision.
LINK
Now, the highest court may have the chance to rein in judicial overreach and restore balance between the branches of government.
Since President Trump began his second term, liberal judges have weaponized nationwide injunctions against his administration an astonishing 17 times in just the first few months — and that's only counting through late March 2025. This is nothing new, of course.
Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration.
In recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, argued in a 2020 concurring opinion that injunctions are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."
He said the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions" and that the court must address them.
He also noted that nationwide injunctions mean that plaintiffs can shop around for the judge that is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause.
"Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide," Gorsuch wrote.
Even Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberal justices, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the blatant judge-shopping tactics used by plaintiffs to game the system.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue because Joe Biden's outgoing Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, also filed a brief in December 2024 asking the Supreme Court to limit these broad orders despite knowing Trump would benefit from the decision.
LINK
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:41 pm to FLTech
The melt will be legendary…. glorious…

Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:42 pm to FLTech
Nice thread, well we all knew it would end up here. How it rolls out is anyone’s guess?
Hopefully the liberal jurisprudence is put to rest permanently.
Prolly not though…
Hopefully the liberal jurisprudence is put to rest permanently.
Prolly not though…
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:43 pm to FLTech
Sincerely, I wish I had the confidence to believe SOTUS will do so. All recent indications are that they wont. Roberts is compromised.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:50 pm to FLTech
this should have been addressed in the first month of trump's term.
once they fix this, its WAR on teh fricking lame arse do-nothing congress to codify trump's EOs
once they fix this, its WAR on teh fricking lame arse do-nothing congress to codify trump's EOs
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:54 pm to FLTech
quote:I have a scintilla of faith in her to break from her coven on this issue.
Even Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberal justices, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the blatant judge-shopping tactics used by plaintiffs to game the system.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:54 pm to FLTech
quote:
Trump v. CASA, which challenges lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
The fact the USSC picked this case makes it hard for me to imagine THIS is the case they'd want to use, with the plainly illegal status of the EO and the drastic impact non-injunction would create.
Both the Likelihood of Irreparable Harm and Likelihood of success standards are clearly met with this particular EO.
The more lesser, less established cases? Those seem like much better opportunities to address the issue.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:54 pm to FLTech
The woke soro's/obama justices will just ignore the Supreme Court
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:55 pm to CAD703X
quote:
once they fix this, its WAR on teh fricking lame arse do-nothing congress to codify trump's EOs
Again, this would do nothing with the particular EO at issue in the case. If it's unconstitutional as an EO, it would be as a Congressional law, too.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:56 pm to FLTech
I have absolutely 0 faith this will go in our favor. I will be shocked if it’s anything other than 6-3 against Trump.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
So they are likely only going to rule on the order itself and not the nationwide injunction aspect?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:59 pm to Jake88
quote:
So they are likely only going to rule on the order itself and not the nationwide injunction aspect?
Based on the reporting, only the injunction aspect. I haven't kept up but I don't think the appeals courts have ruled. If someone has a correction I'd love to read the opinions.
Again, if the total case was ripe, the USSC could dispose of both issues without fear of what I posted. They could rule the EO Unconstitutional and address the injunction portion separately without fear of the impact the temporal gap would permit.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 3:59 pm to Jake88
quote:
I have a scintilla of faith in her to break from her coven on this issue.
It will be interesting, she will be ostracized forever and she will be a pariah among her peers if she breaks.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
Only a constitutional amendment can eliminate birthright citizenship?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:01 pm to Jake88
You're asking a retard to speculate on what's going to happen.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:01 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:SCOTUS either addresses this properly, or the exact same rules of engagement will continue ad infinitum into the next Dem administration and the next Republican administration, over and over until the whole mess falls apart and then you have a coup and these judges will be arrested. The country can't function forever like this.
Sincerely, I wish I had the confidence to believe SOTUS will do so. All recent indications are that they wont. Roberts is compromised.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:04 pm to BuckeyeGoon
He's got good legal knowledge. There are many leftist judges who come up with completely biased rulings. He sounds like he's posting in a matter of fact manner. He's saying this isn't the case to address nationwide injunctions.
This post was edited on 5/14/25 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:04 pm to Jake88
quote:
Only a constitutional amendment can eliminate birthright citizenship?
It's a Constitutional issue.
So either a new amendment or overruling case law that's approaching 130 years in age and has a large progeny of case law, statutory law, and administrative law built around that precedent over that time.
*ETA: since the assumption is that the court wouldn't be ruling on the merits, I made the comment about the Congressional follow up to the injunction issue only.
This post was edited on 5/14/25 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:04 pm to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
You're asking a retard

Posted on 5/14/25 at 4:05 pm to CAD703X
The “do-nothing” Congress is working on the big beautiful bill. They have said this a million times times since November of last year
Why is this so fricking hard for people to comprehend this?
Why is this so fricking hard for people to comprehend this?
Popular
Back to top
