https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-27-25
W I N N I N G! 1. Mahmoud vs. Taylor (6-3): Parents can opt out of LGBTQ+ teachings. Parental rights have been restored by the SCOTUS. 2. Casa vs. Trump (6-3): Part 1: Constitutional to end birth right citizenship that was never meant to circumvent US immigration laws but was meant for the children of former slaves. Part 2: Federal district judges are no longer allowed to exceed their powers by issuing "universal" nationwide injunctions. 3. Free Speech Coalition vs. Paxton (6-3): Affirms Texas law requiring an age verification for viewers of adult content which has been ruled to be obscene for minors. W I N N I N G!
If I recall Republicans never complained about District Courts issuing nationwide injunctions blocking executive branch decisions when that guy was in the White House.
You recall correctly. I also recall President Obama, when he was in the White House, decrying district judges being able to effect nationwide injunctions on his agenda. He wanted the practice stopped. Well, now it has been. He must be very pleased today, right?
It's about time. The left had went crazy with their activist Judges trying to thwart the will of the executive because it didn't follow their leftist agenda. The Dems biggest political weapon is now gone. They can still cause some headaches in DC court but limiting these weaponized injunctions is a game changer.
Poster is once again not informed. 1) The ruling does NOT address birth right citizenship in ANY way whatsoever. " The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." 2) The Federal district judge may rule as to his/her district. To go Nationwide it would need to clear beyond that district as in an Appellate setting.
Just keep in mind that the same precedents limiting District Court injunctions on actions by the president will also apply when a Democrat is back in the White House.
This is how the Majority Opinion characterized the uptick of universal injunctions - occurring under both the Biden and Trump administrations: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_new_g314.pdf The question whether Congress has granted federal courts the authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy plainly warrants our review, as Members of this Court have repeatedly emphasized. See, e.g., McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (GORSUCH , J., concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 1) (“I would . . . take this case now to resolve definitively the question whether a district court may issue universal injunctive relief ”); Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2024) (GORSUCH , J., joined by THOMAS and ALITO , JJ., concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 7–8) (“[T]he pro-priety of universal injunctive relief [is] a question of great significance that has been in need of the Court’s attention for some time”); Griffin v. HM Florida-ORL, LLC, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (2023) (statement of KAVANAUGH, J., joined by BARRETT , J., except as to footnote 1, respecting denial of application for stay) (slip op., at 3) (Universal injunctions present “an important question that could warrant our review in the future”); Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 713 (2018) (T HOMAS, J., concurring) (“If [universal injunctions’] popularity continues, this Court must address their legality”). On multiple occasions, and across administrations, the Solicitor General has asked us to consider the propriety of this expansive remedy. See, e.g., Application for Stay of Injunction in McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., O. T. 2024, No. 24A653 (Biden administration); Brief for Petitioners in Trump v. Hawaii, O. T. 2017, No. 17–965 (first Trump administration). It is easy to see why. By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached “a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court.” W. Baude & S. Bray, Comment, Proper Parties, Proper Relief, 137 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 174 (2023).The trend has continued: During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions. Congressional Research Service, J. Lampe, Nationwide Injunctions in the First Hundred Days of the Second Trump Administration 1(May 16, 2025). As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of the issue.(emphasis added).
Lawfare is a dem thing. Dems may not ever have a president, no worries. The constitution is protected from lawless dem actions and policies.
