Justice Clarence Thomas Destroys the Case for Nationwide Injunctions With One Devastating Question

PJ Media ^ | 05/15/2025 | Matt Margolis

[SeekAndFind]

During Supreme Court oral arguments in the Trump v. CASA, Washington, and New Jersey cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a surgical takedown of the legal rationale for nationwide injunctions, using just one line.

The case centers around whether lower courts can issue sweeping injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, even when only a handful of plaintiffs are before the court. Representing the United States, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that such broad orders violate established legal norms and Supreme Court precedent.

“We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction,” Sauer told the Court. “There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the Court’s opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it’s profoundly wrong.”

Sauer continued, listing key precedents that have rejected expansive injunctive relief. “If you look at the cases that either party cite, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite — like National Treasury Employees Union, Perkins, Frothingham, and Massachusetts v. Mellon, going back to Scott v. Donald — in all of those, those are cases where Court considered and addressed the sort of universal — well, in that case, statewide — provision of injunctive relief.”

He emphasized, “When the Court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.’”

That’s when Justice Thomas stepped in and cut through the legal weeds with a devastatingly simple observation.

“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” he asked.

Sauer didn’t hesitate: “That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s.”

---

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1960s; casa; clarencethomas; hawaii; injunction; injunctions; johnsauer; judicialactivism; judiciary; justicethomas; lawfare; mattmargolis; newjersey; pjmedia; scotus; universalinjunction; washington

[SeekAndFind]

Thomas’s concise question — “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” — hit the heart of the issue. With that simple question, he challenged the idea that such drastic judicial remedies were historically essential, even during one of the most tumultuous and morally urgent periods in American history: the civil rights era, a time when federal courts began issuing broader remedies to dismantle Jim Crow laws and enforce desegregation.

In other words, if the courts managed to confront segregation, enforce Brown v. Board of Education, and make tremendous progress for civil rights without needing to impose blanket nationwide injunctions, then why are they supposedly necessary today over what amounts to policy disputes?

[ClearCase_guy]

I know that the Roberts court tends to be extremely narrow in its rulings, so I don’t have high hopes — but is this the sort of case that could make a sweeping declaration that District Court judges can make decisions for their district, but cannot have any impact outside their district? Because that would be real nice.

[1Old Pro]

We know this is basically political judicial activism, nothing more, nothing less.

[nikos1121]

We’ve survived 250 years. without this happening. Why? Because common sense understanding of the separation of powers that we learned in civics class.

This should be a 9-0

[nikos1121]

That would be common sense ruling. How could a district judge rule outside of his district?

[maro]

This problem should have been dealt with by Congress, but now the Supreme Court will have to step in.

[ComputerGuy]

Put the courts back in their proper place.
In the basement.

[9YearLurker]

Thomas is a treasure.

I don’t know how he’s put up with what he has.

[Fido969]

He “destroyed the case”?

So it’s not there anymore?

[Fido969]

He “destroyed the case”?

So it’s not there anymore?

[Dr. Franklin]

We’ve survived 250 years. without this happening. Why? Because common sense understanding of the separation of powers that we learned in civics class.
This should be a 9-0

Humankind reproduced and multiplied for millennia without recognizing that homosexual could marry. That didn't stop SCOTUS from recognizing a "right" that no sane person before them would have recognized. What should be and what is are two very differnt things.

[montag813]

Means nothing. Conehead Barrett is showing her utter contempt for the Trump counsel with every breath. She is a disgusting traitor and the biggest mistake Trump ever made. This case will be lost. NO MORE FEMALE JUSTICES!

[Dick Bachert]

[Dick Bachert]

[BlackbirdSST]

How could a district judge rule outside of his district?

Isn't that the purpose of Districts? If one district can rule and apply it to the other districts then why do we have other districts?

[z3n]

[9YearLurker]

Even within their districts, they’re ruling on stuff they have no say over (e.g., the executive administration, foreign policy, and national defense as assigned to the president).

[tumblindice]

The framers warned about the tendency of government and factions to seek more and even more power, to the detriment of the People.
https://www.heritage.org/courts/report/against-judicial-supremacy-the-founders-and-the-limits-the-courts

Here it is transparent that this is ‘politics by other means’ by the democrats.

[MinorityRepublican]

“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” he asked.

So they're illegal and unconstitutional.

[silent majority rising]

If the District Judges can issue National Injunctions, what is the need for a Supreme Court?