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

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

[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?