Free Republic

WASHINGTON — Eight migrants with violent criminal convictions detained by the feds will be sent to South Sudan following a legal skirmish in two separate federal jurisdictions trying to halt their deportation. Lawyers for the migrants filed another lawsuit on July 4 in Washington, DC, to pause their flight to the African nation after the Supreme Court ruled against them Thursday as part of an earlier suit that determined the Trump administration could proceed with the removals. DC District Court Judge Randolph Moss, in response to the most recent suit, temporarily blocked the flight Friday — but shifted it back...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a relatively rare clarification of its earlier opinion, which lifted the injunction on the deportation of immigrants to third-party countries. In a surprising response, Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled that he considered his orders regarding the eight immigrants set for deportation to South Sudan to remain unchanged by the decision. The Court quickly disabused him of that notion by declaring that he was not in compliance with its order. What was most remarkable, however, was the sharp concurrence by Justice Elena Kagan who, despite voting against the original order, called out Murphy for defying...

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by reorganizing several of its agencies and substantially cutting their workforce. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose in Providence, Rhode Island, issued an injunction at the behest of a group of Democratic-led states who challenged a plan HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr announced in March to consolidate agencies and fire 10,000 of the department’s employees. The layoffs, in addition to earlier buyout offers and firings of probationary employees, reduced the number of full-time HHS employees to...

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...

Emboldened by Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the president said his administration will flex its authority on issues ranging from immigration to higher education.An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president’s top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions.Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president’s agenda “as soon as possible,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to...

Why did Justice Kagan oppose nationwide injunctions in 2022 but support them now? @ScottJenningsKY : "In 2022, Justice Kagan actually gave an interview and said out loud what a lot of conservatives have been saying this year, which is that how can it be that an individual district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction and effectively grind a presidency to a halt and, you know, take years and years and years for it to go through the process?" "Now, she obviously voted the other way this time around. I wonder what caused her to change her opinion."

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., released Friday, finally put the brakes on the reckless abuse of nationwide injunctions by lower courts—and has Democrats in full meltdown mode. The left’s favorite judicial weapon just got neutered, and the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. The liberal wing of the court didn’t do itself any favors, either. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was so horrible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to call it out in the majority opinion. But Justice Elena Kagan’s credibility also took a direct hit. In a stunning display of judicial flip-flopping, Kagan’s...

The CASA ruling has been handed down, and rogue judges and unhinged liberals are hardest hit. While it doesn’t address the issue of birthright citizenship per se, it did strike down the national injunction power that district judges have been abusing since the outset of the second Trump presidency. SCOTUSblog set up the issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states. And in a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled:...

In a sweeping ruling, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to block executive actions throughout the country through nationwide injunctions, greatly affecting how parties seek judicial relief going forward. The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, deals a significant blow to legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s extreme executive orders and other actions, many of which have been blocked or temporarily put on hold through nationwide injunctions. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions prevent the government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy across the entire U.S. — not just against the specific...

Not a week seems to go by without a rogue lower court judge issuing yet another overreaching edict designed to subvert the will of the American people. While these “judges” certainly deserve criticism for rubber-stamping leftists’ lawfare, there’s one individual who deserves primary blame for this concentrated effort to cripple Trump’s presidency via a judicial coup: Chief Justice John Roberts. Over the past five months, rogue lower courts have issued nearly 200 overreaching injunctions and temporary restraining orders attempting to prevent Trump from fulfilling his Article II obligation to execute the nation’s laws. And yet, despite this egregious usurpation of...

The operation to cue riots over the removal of illegal immigrants has been well-planned in advance. Chief lawfare artists Norm Eisen and Mary McCord have engineered the legal strategy to oppose enforcement of US immigration law. They will clog the courts with lawsuits to prevent it and enlist their allied federal judges to issue injunction after injunction paralyzing the deportation process. ...

Activist judges like Judge Boasberg are are issuing blatantly unlawful nationwide injunctions. It’s not judicial review, it’s judicial sabotage.

Sen. John Kennedy came loaded for bear when questioning Kate Shaw in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Shaw was invited by the Democrats. She's a University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor and an ABC News contributor. She also happens to be married to MSNBC host Chris Hayes. The subject in discussion was judicial overreach. Among the topics under that rubric was nationwide injunctions. Our sister site, PJ Media, reported Kennedy asked if any of the panel of witnesses thought that "nationwide or universal injunctions are not being abused." Shaw said that in her opinion, she didn't see any...

The Supreme Court unanimously decided on Thursday to limit environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects in a case that will have sweeping impacts on President Donald Trump’s energy agenda. In a move that will restrict power of federal judges, Thursday’s decision reduces the scope of reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to focus solely on immediate impacts. Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to study any potentially significant environmental consequences of federal permits for infrastructure projects. “NEPA does not allow courts, ‘under the guise of judicial review’ of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects...

This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration. The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I call “chronic injunctivitis” is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy. For presidents, you have...

Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit responded to the Supreme Court charging a district court with “inaction” for not ruling on an emergency injunction in A.A.R.P v. Trump in 42 minutes by arguing they had over 14 hours. Alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang the U.S. government has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, sent an injunction in April seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent their deportation or removal from the U.S., according to Ho’s concurring opinion. The district court told petitioners it would give the government a 24-hour...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions—-the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump. “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument,...

SummaryTrump order targeted children of certain immigrants Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide Administration challenges nationwide injunctions WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood.The court's conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland,...

Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation. The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump...

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...