Posted on 06/28/2025 4:59:40 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court has set a new, higher bar for judges seeking to block Trump administration policies nationwide. But some legal routes remain open.
A Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block White House policies will bring a wave of urgency and uncertainty to the federal courts, experts said, as plaintiffs pursue new ways of blocking President Trump’s agenda and judges sort out how to apply the court’s complex ruling.
On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that district court judges likely exceeded their authority with so-called nationwide injunctions.
Also known as universal injunctions, they have been used by judges more than two dozen times to block pieces of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda, including freezes on federal funding, changes to voting rules and limitations on birthright citizenship — all with the stroke of a pen. Now, the justices ruled, the lower courts can only block government policies for “each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Those plaintiffs can still win rulings that affect a large number of people, including, for example, everyone living in a state in a case brought by that state’s attorney general.
The justices also specified two exceptions to its new rule: class-action lawsuits, which can apply to groups of people in a similar legal situation, and cases brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs executive branch rule-making and allows judges to block actions by agencies found to be “arbitrary” or “capricious.”
The result was a muddled picture, with the Trump administration and its adversaries rolling out competing readings of what is likely to happen next.
The White House framed the ruling as effectively giving a judicial green light to its entire agenda.
But hours later, Skye Perryman, the president of Democracy Forward, a legal group that has brought dozens of lawsuits against the administration...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Winning...
Poor judges (sarc.)...now they cannot be the mouse that roared , the megalomania will now stop hopefully.
What's new?
Different judge: “What is a ‘yoot’?”
“as plaintiffs pursue new ways of blocking President Trump’s agenda”
I’m sorry here, but get an effing life!
“Grapple with new limitations”?
...You mean the Constitution...?
President Trump should openly thank democrats for forcing the Supreme Court to address their judicial over-reach and rein in the leftist judges.
Democrats screwed up by their excessive judicial attacks on Trump.
They overloaded America with their many, many ridiculous judicial restraints on President Trump to the point that the Supreme Court could no
longer ignore their excessive over-reach.
If they had shown some restraint in the number of judicial actions against Trump or not pursued every whacko challange to his presidential
authority the Supreme Court would have been lesss inclined to address the issue.
But their over-reach made it imsible for SCOTUS to ignore the issue or act to restore some balance to the influence of the lower courts.
The law cannot control people who wipe their ass with the law. Nothing happens to the judges who have been wiping their ass with the law, so, WHY would they not continue to wipe their ass with the law?
Ha. They’ll learn.
Nationwide injunctions are an illegitimate step child of Judicial precedence, stare decisis principles.
Kinda like me being forced to “grapple” with the cops’ authority to pull me over if I’m speeding.
Courts Will Have To Grapple With New Limits On Their PowerCourts Will Have To Adjust To Restored Constitutional Limits on Their Power
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.