Free Republic

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...

This seems, on the surface, like a victory for the legacy media - but it's not the victory they were hoping for. Here's why. On Tuesday, Judge Trevor McFadden granted the Associated Press (AP) an injunction against the Trump administration's banning them from press events in the Oval Office and the East Room. The AP claimed that the administration blocked their access because of editorial viewpoints, and Judge McFadden agreed. Here's Politico's Senior Political Affairs reporter Kyle Cheney's X thread with some details; this takes a little unpacking.BREAKING: Judge McFadden has *granted * the AP’s injunction against the White House’s...

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to dismantle weak arguments with his signature Southern wit. On Monday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he was at the top of his game, systematically exposing the complete lack of legal authority for district judges to issue universal injunctions — a favorite tactic of the left to block Trump’s agenda. Questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders. "Mr. Shumate, what's a universal injunction?" Kennedy asked. Shumate explained, "Senator, a universal injunction is an order from a court enjoining the government in...

*** On Tuesday, Trump issued a memorandum entitled “Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c),” and directed it to “the heads of executive departments and agencies.” The order opens by describing the way activists, using donated and government-granted funds, have been obtaining sweeping injunctions from carefully selected district court judges (that is, those seated in forums friendly to Democrats). With the judges’ help, the activists have been ” functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process.”...it’s mandatory, although the government never seems to have bothered pushing for security before: The...

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Subject: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even Government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process. This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. Taxpayers are forced...

Question: Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President? Conclusion: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had "no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties...." The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the...

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds. This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! When I...

A federal district court Sunday granted a Texas doctor an injunction against Biden administration regulations that illegally restrict how doctors can protect patients from the harms of abortion and “gender transition” while a lawsuit proceeds. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed suit on behalf of a Texas physician in October to challenge rule changes by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The changes to regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act added unprecedented restrictions on doctors’ ability to report abuse and states’ ability to protect children from abortion and harmful drugs and surgeries related to gender confusion....

The U.S. government has appealed the nationwide preliminary injunction—and FinCEN has backed off of its position that filings should continue. FinCEN now says that "reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports." Earlier this week, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas threw the fate of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) into question, blocking the U.S. Department of Treasury from enforcing the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements across the country. Now, the U.S. government has appealed the nationwide preliminary injunction—and FinCEN has backed off of its position that filings should...

Several Catholic organizations have prevailed, at least temporarily, in their efforts to block the Biden administration from enforcing a rule that would require them to provide their employees with accommodations for elective abortions in violation of their deeply held religious beliefs. In an opinion released Monday, federal Judge David Joseph granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Biden administration from enforcing a rule interpreting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to require employers to provide their employees with accommodations in order to obtain an abortion against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Lafayette and Lake Charles...

A federal judge has sided with Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill issuing a preliminary injunction against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) attempt to hijack the protections of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In May, the Attorneys General filed the complaint against the EEOC and their attempt to impose a national abortion regime. “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is an important measure to support women in the workplace when they are pregnant and following childbirth. It is a shame that the Biden Administration is shortchanging the needs of working women in its single-minded drive...

A Kentucky federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration’s Title IX overhaul on Kentucky. The injunction comes in a case filed by Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia and comes less than a week after a federal judge in Louisiana issued a similar ruling in a case filed by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The Kentucky preliminary injunction only impacts the six states that were part of the lawsuit, along with the Christian Educators Association International. [snip] “This is a big victory for women and girls because the Title IX revisions being pushed by the...

Maryland’s “can’t carry anywhere” legislation will take effect on Sunday, but a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement in at least some of the state’s new “gun-free zones.” U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama in 2012, split the baby in his decision; allowing Maryland’s prohibitions on lawful carrying to remain in effect as they apply to museums, health care facilities, state parks and state forests, mass transit facilities, school grounds, government buildings, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos while granting an injunction against enforcement of the new law when...

At 1:00p mountain time this afternoon a District Court Judge will hear arguments in a number of motions seeking a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s authoritarian suspension of gun rights in the state’s largest city and county.

*** Trump ***, fumed on Truth Social over a report that former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan had agreed to testify before the Fulton County panel Tuesday. “I am reading reports that failed former Lt. Governor of Georgia, Jeff [sic] Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury. He shouldn’t,” Trump posted. *** “He refused having a Special Session to find out what went on, became very unpopular with Republicans (I refused to endorse him!), and fought the TRUTH all the way.” *** “WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE FULTON COUNTY GRAND JURY THAT I DID NOT TAMPER WITH...

A new Idaho voter registration law that took effect July 1 requires voters to prove their identity and residency when registering to vote, no matter how they register. The law, House Bill 340, is designed to standardize voter registration procedures across the state, so that the requirements are the same for registering to vote in-person on Election Day as they are for filling out a voter registration card at a summer event or registering online, said Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who sponsored the law. But a Boise-based youth voter advocacy group called Babe Vote announced less than a week...

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court in Virginia this week delivered a message to Congress, the White House and developers of the Mountain Valley Pipeline: not so fast. Pennsylvania-based Equitrans Midstream’s roughly 300-mile pipeline, envisioned to bring shale gas from the Marcellus and Utica in Appalachia to markets in the Southeast, was fast-tracked as part of the Biden administration’s deal with Congress to suspend the debt limit in June. It’s also supported by Pennsylvania congressmen, including U.S. Reps. John Joyce, R-Blair, and Guy Reschenthaler, R-Peters, who joined U.S. Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va., to introduce the legislation in May that helped...

The developers of Mountain Valley Pipeline have asked the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency intervention to allow the project’s construction to progress. The pipeline developers made their application late Friday to vacate the stays of the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Such applications represent a request for emergency action addressed to a specific justice, in this case Chief Justice John Roberts. Each justice is assigned to circuits to handle such applications, and Roberts has the Fourth Circuit, which includes the region where the pipeline is being developed. The 35-page filing is in...

Things are moving very fast in the State of Missouri versus Biden - Social Media Censorship Case. On the Fourth of July, Judge Doughty filed an injunction against the Biden admin (see details in the Liberty Counsel Press Release Below).Late last week, the Biden administration filed a motion to stay the injunctionThis weekend, The attorneys general for Missouri and Louisiana submitted a petition to oppose the Biden administration’s motion to stay the injunction (see The Epoch Times Analysis below).Today, Judge Doughty rules to deny the Biden administration’s motion to stay the injunction in the State of Missouri versus Biden -...

This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.