BY A 6-3 VOTE. THE SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES PRACTICE OF LOWLY DISTRICT COURT JUSTICES CONTROLLING THE NATIONALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT VIA UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS

Or, as The Bee puts it:

This case is about two issues:

First, about Trump's EO declaring that "birthright citizenship" is not supported by the Constitution and should not be recognized by the executive or courts. The Court did not reach this issue, as they "disposed of it," as they say, by its other ruling.

Which was about lowly district court hacks presuming to not just rule on the parties before them in the specific, defined jurisdiction they sit in, but to issue universal injunctions of national reach in order to dictate their Liliputian wills to the nationally-elected constitutional chief executive officer.

Amy Coney Barret wrote the opinion declaring that lowly district court judges have never in all of American history had the power they routinely assert to essentially invent national policy as they see fit.

The Supreme Court delivered a significant win for the Trump admin on Friday, limiting the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said such injunctions likely go beyond what the Constitution allows, especially in cases targeting executive actions.

Key Details:

The Court ruled that federal judges overstep their constitutional authority when they issue nationwide injunctions, particularly when only a handful of plaintiffs are involved.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that "[f]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," emphasizing that their role is to resolve specific legal disputes, not to dictate national policy.

While the Court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, it granted the government's request to limit injunctions to apply only to plaintiffs with standing.

Diving Deeper:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case that challenged the use of sweeping nationwide injunctions to block federal policy. The ruling significantly curtails the ability of lower courts to issue broad orders that halt executive actions across the country, reinforcing the constitutional limits of judicial power.

The case stemmed from multiple injunctions that had been issued to stop President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship--a policy announced on his first day back in office. Though the justices did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself, they took aim at the overreach of lower courts in issuing expansive blocks on executive policy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that "[f]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them." She added, "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

The Court ultimately agreed to grant the government's request to scale back the injunctions. "The Government's applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted," Barrett wrote, "but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

Unfortunately, the unreliable ditz Coney Barret left open the possibility that lowly district court justices can issue nationwide injunctions in cases where a state is suing the federal government:

The CASA ruling leaves room for judges to order relief akin to a nationwide injunction when a state sues the federal government. But the justices provided little guidance, which indicates that different judges could reach different conclusions on whether and how states can get universal injunctions -- until SCOTUS resolves that question too.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett writes, "We decline to take up these arguments in the first instance. The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments."

The opinion states that Congress never granted lowly district court justices the power to grant "equitable relief" (injunctions) to anyone except the exact parties in court in front of them. They cannot simply just say that their rulings apply across the country to anyone else who might make a similar complaint.

Katanji Brown-Jackson wrote an illiterate dissent in which she railed against "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" to assert that yes, lowly district court judges can overrule the nationally elected constitutional chief executive officer whenever they feel that liberals really need a win.

Coney Barret blasted her, accusing her simply ignoring 250 years of constitutional practice in order to create an "imperial judiciary."

i/o @avidseries "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."

-- SCOTUS majority opinion today

The full passage is worth the read. Amy Coney Barret calls Ketanji Jackson-Brown dumb, in so many words, incapable of reading, understanding, and applying the law, simply acting like a panelist on The View popping off about what she thinks the law should be while complaining about the "legalese" in the law.

She doesn't seem to grasp that "legalese" is what makes up the law. She seems to dismiss it because she can't follow it.

Now, for a layman, this is understandable. Laymen don't understand legalese and are impatient with it.

But this is, allegedly, a Supreme Court Justice. Shouldn't the "legalese" and "dry technical arguments" (as she dismisses all legal reasoning) be of some concern to her?

I think that I am correct in noting that Justice Jumanji is the first Appellate judge to be reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court who then got elevated to it.

The woman wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it bit her on the ass.

Posted by: toby928 at June 27, 2025 12:12 PM

There are other Supreme Court rulings today. I'll post about them later.

I'll also post again about Jackson-Brown's frequent complaint that there is too much boring law stuff in the law. She actually makes this argument all the time. She doesn't like the dry, boring law getting in the way of her social justice activism. She wants to be free to just pop off like Whoopie Goldberg on The View, but with the force of law behind her ignorant mumblings.

BY A 6-3 VOTE. THE SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES PRACTICE OF LOWLY DISTRICT COURT JUSTICES CONTROLLING THE NATIONALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT VIA UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS&bodytext= Or, as The Bee puts it: This case is about two issues: First, about Trump's EO declaring that "birthright citizenship" is not supported by the Constitution and should not be recognized by the executive or courts. The Court did...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 12:10 PM

| Access Comments