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 v. CASA out of Maryland; Trump v. Washington out of Washington State, and Trump v. New Jersey, out of Massachusetts. These cases also present standing issues since the Administration challenges the argument that there is a cognizable “injury” to individuals who may travel to the states bringing the actions.
However, the main question is the scope of injunctions.
As I have previously written, district court judges have issued a record number of injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.
This is a rare argument. First, it is a shadow docket filing that usually results in summary decisions without oral argument. Moreover, this matter came after what is commonly viewed as the final day for oral arguments. The Court granted a rare late oral argument, reflecting that multiple justices view this matter sufficiently serious to warrant a break from standard operating procedures.
Rather than arguing a “question presented” on birthright citizenship, the Administration is solely looking for limits on the district courts as appeals continue on the “important constitutional questions” raised by birthright citizenship.
The Administration argues that the Constitution does not give judges the power to issue universal injunctions and that courts are limited to addressing the cases before them in a given district. The Administration acknowledges that class actions can create the basis for universal injunctions, offering a moderate resolution to the Court. In such cases, if the parties can meet the standard for a national class, they can seek a national or universal injunction.
In today’s arguments (which I will be covering for Fox and on X), we can expect to hear from justices who have previously been critical of universal injunctions, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, called them “legally and historically dubious.”
Likewise, Justices Gorsuch and Alito have criticized such injunctions. In a prior dissent to an emergency filing in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in stating that the government “has a strong argument that the District Court’s order violates the principle that a federal court may not issue an equitable remedy that is ‘more burdensome than necessary to’ redress the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Many of us will be watching three members the most closely: Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist, and we should see in his argument how he views the impact of such injunctions on the court system as a whole. He is very protective of the courts’ inherent authority but may also have misgivings about the scope of these orders.
During the Biden Administration, Justice Kagan has previously criticized universal injunctions. In an interview at Northwestern University Law School, Kagan flagged the “forum shopping” by litigants in filing cases before favorable courts:
“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right. In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
Justice Barrett previously joined with Kavanaugh in stating that the power of district courts to enter a universal injunction “is an important question that could warrant our review in the future.”
The argument today will start at 10 am and I will be doing a running review of the arguments on X.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue the government’s case.
Jeremy Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, will argue for the state and local governments and Kelsi Corkran, the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, will argue for the private individuals and groups.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
If God never said anything about inalienable rights, then have we been living a lie?
Are u 12?
One of the Dem justices is talking the whole time, not letting Trump’s lawyer answer. The Chief even had to chime in and say “let him answer.” Of course, she didn’t.
Let me guess, KJB?
I believe it was Sotomayor.
The power differs in terms, length of years. Executive 4-8 years v. Judges , justices lifetime. This is unequal power. This is the reason Dobbs and affirmative action happened. The idea of justices saying ill get back around to it in 20 to 25 years. Let’s see how it plays.
The lower courts must be limited or they’ll game the system politically because nothing can happen to them. Let’s see what this dumbarse court does.
Limit judges and justices to 4-8 year terms and the congress already is except the same is continually reelected.
#. Personal note: I tried to listen but it was like poking a stick in my eye.
“A Modest Request”
There’s a roomer going around that if Puff Daddy Combs is found guilty in NYC, Trump will then pardon Puff Daddy.
Biden sure would
“Roomer” from a groomer ^^^^
You can livestream the oral arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It has just started at 10:14
On C-SPAN 3 NOW
Next problem – district courts rubber-stamping nationwide plaintiff classes and issuing injunctions.
The only reason for so many injunctions is because so many of Trump’s EO’s are either unlawful or unconstitutional. Plus, there’s also DOGE and Elon’s role which is still a questionable “appointment.”
Trump’s actions are not only lawless, some are even beyond the bounds of his authority like firing the librarian of the Library of Congress which is NOT under the executive branch.
The games Trump’s DOJ plays with the courts adds more injunctions limited to particular districts and Trump moving plaintiffs to other districts where more injunctions are issued. The growing number of injunctions are all caused by Trump. Turley knows that but we know he won’t directly address it that way because it would be seen as a criticism of Trump. We all know any criticism of Trump is blasphemy in MAGA world.
If SCOTUS sets limits on injunctions to just the districts where the cases are heard it will also pose a problem for conservative causes like abortion, immigration, and when a democrat is in office they would no longer be able to forum shop, a favorite tactic of the right.
The argument at hand is not the legality of any particular action, it is whether the district courts may improperly substitute judicial judgment for executive policy, especially when deportations align (which is indeed the case here…..they are here illegally) with existing statutes. The president’s prioritization of enforcement—targeting, criminal aliens—falls within prosecutorial discretion. Thus, these executive actions are neither unlawful nor unconstitutional but reflect lawful exercises of delegated authority.
The validity of a nationwide injunction, in my opinion, should be tied to the executive policy which it enjoins.
If the executive order pertains to issues of immigration for example, which Arizona v. United States (2012) clarified is a national concern that demands a uniform policy, there is clear justification for a nationwide injunction.
I still haven’t heard a reasonable alternative for this case.
First of all, it’s not just consequences for the children of immigrants. There’s 3.6 million children born every year, and every single parent and child born going forward would have to demonstrate their lineage, citizenship and ancestry in order for their child to be recognized as a citizen.
There have been estimates of how much this would cost. It would be about $3,000 per child. It would be imposed on state officials, hospital officials and the parents of newborns.
Immigration officials, who are already overwhelmed, take months and years to do the simplest of procedural determinations. So, add in every new child that they have to certify as a citizen before that citizenship is recognized, and it’s a nightmare.
Then, add in the fact that, as a consequence, about 300,000 people a year would be born in the United States, who would fall within the executive orders exclusion from citizenship. Some of those people would be stateless.
Those newborn babies could be deported on day one. Most of them would not have a path to any sort of status, and there’s certainly nothing in the law that would allow for it now. If this executive order goes into effect, that could begin immediately.
Final point: The executive order is not clear about its prospectivity or retroactivity. Anyone who comes to the Trump administration’s attention who they don’t like, they could start digging into their lineage and ancestry and see whether or not that person’s a real citizen or someone they could deport.
This president has already said he wants to deport so-called “homegrown” [criminals], by which he means citizens. I see no reason why he wouldn’t take that same tactic to start attacking his political enemies based on what he determines is some suspect citizenship.
That terrifies me, and I think this is a real risk in light of this administration and its approach to the law and to people it considers its enemies.
The deportations aren’t he issue. It’s the administration’s attempt to circumvent due process for expediency and that is unconstitutional. Using the AEA to achieve that is still illegal since there is no declared war or invasion. Trump’s own intelligence agencies have made it clear Venezuela is not coordinating with Tren de Aragua gangs at all. Trump is lying and using the act to deport people by accusing them of being gang members without evidence and denying the accused the opportunity to prove the government is wrong. Even the Trump judge agreeing that the AEA can be used put very strict and narrow requirements such as 21 days notice and requiring the notices be in the languge of the deportees instead of english only, and that they have access to a lawyer.
Courts do have the authority to review Trump’s actions and deportatioon policies when challenged by plaintiffs. Trump’s powers are not absolute.
There is negligence. There is that. That no one put Biden in a headlock and pounded him to the mat is negligence.
The fact that you’re against it is all I need to know that it is needed.
George: I believe Trump has authority to remove the Librarian of Congress. See SCOTUS cases e.g., Parsons, Myers, etc. But I believe he must go thru congress for a permanent replacement, which is why he’s got temporary replacements holding it down for now.
Lin,
Thank you for pointing out legal facts for the slow and dumb one who gets all his legal expertise from Google.
Again, thank you and other, real lawyers to correct the slow and dumb one.
What a bunch of BS. Tell us which order is unconstitional and howl.
The nation finds itself in this mess because we were lied to about our borders being closed and under control. Every night average joe citizen watched reputable media broadcast video of the truth. Unvetted illegals and unaccompanied minors flooded into the United States at the invitation of a cognitive disabled person, to date Americans have no idea who was pulling the strings. Those who lied at investigations have yet to face justice for those lies, mass pardons from prosecution for crimes never defined were issued. To date an anti American political party fights to stop deportations of those illegals at the expense of American lives and money.
I concurr. SSA stole $ 700K from me, I former mathematician LLNL, proved. Today, 75, I am homeless, with 0 income. arriving, Boston South amtrack 836 pm on m16 May, with luggage and nothing else. Ido not deserve this situation
Pegpullen@proton.me
You must have mistyped the email address, it clearly should have been “leg”, not “peg”…
Everything is measurable, including Judicial performance. And since it’s measurable, it can be objectively consequential. Create a Judicial credit scoring system that follows a Judge once they enter the branch. Minimum scores required to hear certain cases. This has the potential to end judge shopping.
Measurable by what standard. As in dancing front of a court or putting away bad guys? Or doing what you demand? Think that through friend.
Then drop the idea, it will never, ever happen.
Just measure the number of decisions upheld on appeal and the number of cases overturned on appeal. You can then get a measure of likely correct judicial decisions (upheld cases/total cases appealed) and a measure of likely incorrect judicial decisions (overturned cases/total cases appealed).
Just measure the number of decisions upheld on appeal and the number of cases overturned on appeal.
Vincente, you and lin identified the main measure I had in mind. I can imagine surveying attorneys to identify any number of measurable criteria they have to consider once they find out which judge is assigned their case. Just using ChatGPT to ask: What would an objective rating system measure regarding a judges performance pursuant to the united states constitution? It can be done.
1. Adherence to Constitutional Principles
Constitutional Interpretation: Does the judge apply the Constitution’s text, structure, and original meaning, or does the judge follow a more flexible, evolving interpretation? This would evaluate whether the judge adheres to an “originalist” or “living Constitution” approach, or blends both.
Respect for Constitutional Limitations: Does the judge respect the limits of judicial power and avoid overreach? The system would assess whether the judge maintains the integrity of the separation of powers and does not exceed their constitutional role.
Defense of Constitutional Rights: How consistently does the judge protect individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech, the right to due process, and equal protection under the law?
2. Legal Reasoning and Rationale
Clarity and Transparency of Reasoning: How well does the judge explain their reasoning in written opinions? Are their decisions logically sound, well-reasoned, and grounded in law, especially constitutional law?
Use of Precedent (Stare Decisis): How consistently does the judge follow precedent? Does the judge show respect for prior rulings, and when departing from precedent, does the judge provide a compelling and legally sound reason?
Application of Relevant Constitutional Principles: Does the judge accurately apply relevant constitutional provisions and legal principles in their rulings? This would include understanding the nuances of constitutional law and interpreting it appropriately in the context of each case.
3. Impartiality and Independence
Bias and Conflicts of Interest: How well does the judge maintain impartiality, avoiding bias, political influence, or conflicts of interest? The rating system could measure whether the judge recuses themselves from cases when appropriate.
Respect for Judicial Independence: Does the judge remain independent from the political branches (executive and legislative)? The system would evaluate how well the judge resists external pressures and maintains autonomy in their rulings.
Objectivity in High-Profile Cases: Does the judge make decisions free of personal or ideological bias, especially in politically charged or high-profile cases that may involve contentious constitutional issues?
4. Respect for Precedent and the Rule of Law
Consistency with Precedent: How often does the judge rely on and follow established legal precedent? When departing from precedent, does the judge provide a well-reasoned justification?
Upholding Rule of Law: Does the judge promote and uphold the rule of law in all cases, treating every party equally under the law regardless of status, wealth, or political power?
5. Fairness and Procedural Justice
Fairness in Adjudication: How consistently does the judge provide equal and fair treatment to all parties involved in a case, ensuring due process is followed? This includes impartial rulings in civil, criminal, and constitutional cases.
Access to Justice: Does the judge ensure that litigants have equal access to the judicial process, regardless of their socio-economic background, race, or nationality? A good rating system would assess how well the judge promotes fairness in the procedural aspects of cases, such as the right to an adequate defense or access to legal representation.
Transparency in Decision-Making: Does the judge provide clear, understandable, and reasoned opinions that allow the public and legal community to understand how constitutional principles are applied?
6. Respect for Judicial Integrity and Ethics
Ethical Standards: Does the judge adhere to ethical standards set by judicial codes of conduct and the law? This includes maintaining integrity and avoiding any unethical behavior or actions.
Public Confidence: How does the judge’s behavior and conduct influence public perception of the judicial system? A judge who maintains high ethical standards contributes to the overall trust and confidence the public has in the judiciary.
7. Judicial Temperament and Professionalism
Temperament in Court: Does the judge exhibit patience, professionalism, and respect for all parties in the courtroom? This includes how well they manage courtroom behavior, ensure fair proceedings, and maintain a civil environment.
Handling Complex Legal Issues: Does the judge demonstrate the ability to handle complex constitutional questions and legal arguments in a measured and thoughtful manner?
Decorum and Demeanor: Is the judge respectful to lawyers, litigants, and other participants in the judicial process, contributing to an orderly, respectful, and efficient courtroom?
8. Efficiency and Timeliness
Timely Rulings: Does the judge issue timely decisions, avoiding unnecessary delays? A judge’s efficiency in processing cases and issuing rulings can be crucial in ensuring that justice is served promptly, especially in constitutional cases that may have broad implications.
Management of Case Load: How well does the judge manage their docket? A well-rated judge would efficiently process cases without undue delay, while still giving each case the attention it deserves.
9. Contribution to Legal and Constitutional Scholarship
Impact on Legal Development: How does the judge contribute to the development of constitutional law? Are their rulings influential in shaping important legal precedents and interpretations of constitutional principles?
Scholarly Engagement: Does the judge engage in scholarly work, such as writing academic articles, participating in legal education, or contributing to public discussions on constitutional matters? This would measure the judge’s broader impact on legal theory and public understanding of constitutional law.
10. Public Perception and Legitimacy
Public Trust and Legitimacy: How does the judge’s performance contribute to public trust in the judicial system? Are their decisions widely regarded as fair and just, reinforcing the legitimacy of the courts?
Transparency in Communication: Does the judge communicate their decisions clearly, explaining complex legal concepts in ways that are accessible to the public? This would help in ensuring that the public understands the constitutional basis for rulings, contributing to the legitimacy of judicial actions.
11. Judicial Innovation and Adaptability
Openness to New Constitutional Questions: How well does the judge address evolving societal issues that require new interpretations of constitutional law? While staying true to constitutional principles, does the judge adapt to changing social contexts without overstepping their role?
Creativity in Constitutional Interpretation: Is the judge able to offer innovative but constitutionally grounded interpretations in complex cases? This is especially relevant in cases involving emerging legal issues or novel constitutional questions.
Conclusion
An objective rating system for judicial performance pursuant to the U.S. Constitution would aim to evaluate judges on their adherence to constitutional principles, legal reasoning, impartiality, fairness, and professionalism. It would also consider the broader impact of their decisions on constitutional law and public trust in the judiciary. Such a system could provide an insightful, balanced way to assess judges’ contributions to upholding the Constitution while maintaining judicial independence and integrity.
Anonymous @9:16
It doesn’t take much to think it through. I have no idea what criteria Olly is thinking of, but immediately upon reading his comment, I inferred that at least one factor would be the judge’s record of being reversed on appeal.
By the same token, “forum-shopping” parties can readily review a judge’s reversal history as well as his/her positions taken on certain issues. So I do not quite understand how such a credit scoring system will “end judge shopping?”
“one factor would be the judge’s record of being reversed on appeal”
The problem with basing a judge’s tenure on reversals is that it seems to assume that there is a universal, or at least highly prevalent, tendency to find judges with more fidelity to the Constitution and more integrity to their oaths as one ascends the Federal court hierarchy. Possibly that was once true, but does it remain so? What happens if and when the activist Federal district judges who are authoring all of these terrible decisions today make their way up the judicial ladder? My fear is that if such a policy is instituted, good judges newly appointed to the lower Federal courts would quickly be gone after being reversed by activist-dominated courts above them. How can the reversal criteria be made foolproof against this possibility? I support efforts to hold Federal judges accountable, but I want to me certain that what they are held accountable to id the Constitution, not some politically popular ephemeral whim.
If a Judicial “Credit Scoring” system were created, every judge would be measured against the criteria. New judges would need to build their score and those with more history would have a score built already. Those with a proven history may have a score that disqualifies them from climbing that ladder and perhaps they would be removed from the higher level court altogether.
Anonymous @9:16:
I don’t think it takes much “thinking it through.” While I have no idea what criterion/criteria Olly may have been premising his proposal on, I can name at least one possibility: a judge’s history of being reversed on appeal as well as his/her articulated opinions on pressing issues.
Notwithstanding, -that information being already being readily available,- I do not see how these factors (for measurement of “judicial performance” ) would decrease forum shopping.
oops. my error; thought I had accidentally erased the first comment. sorry to all
Perhaps judicial performance is irrelevant to the plaintiffs. Instead, knowing the process and time needed to adjudicate will be lengthy, even if knowing the judge is likely to be overturned on appeal, is the goal for forum shopping?
Are you better off now than you were four months ago?
Well the border is closed, the market isn’t doing too badly, Europe is making noise about spending more on defense, government bloat is being attacked, bad guys are being deported, inflation is down and the middle east is looking better. So yes, I think we are better off today than we were 4 months ago. Thanks for asking.
Sorry, those factors don’t better for better off. Just because some media says so doesn’t make it true.
Better off is subjective. Am I better off. No. Are you better off. Yes. A positive and a negative make for no change. So, are we better off? Nah.
That makes no sense. Hullbobby’s factors are definitely making him and every American better off, other than violent criminals and TDS sufferers.
Fact, inflation is coming down. Energy prices are down 8% since Trump came into office. Price of eggs is about a $1 lower since Trump came into office. Illegals at the border are down 93%. The stock market has recovered all it’s “Liberation Day” losses and has been up in light of Trump’s Mid-East trade deals. Trump has also gained a lot of American investment from other countries to include the recent $600bn from Saudi Arabia. Trump has also secured more, fair trade deals that will benefit America. We have backed down from Biden’s push for WWIII and the peace negotiations in Istanbul look better than anything Biden would or could do. That alone is better not for just America but the whole world. Trump also appears to have gotten a nuclear deal with Iran. Again, that is better for the whole world. So, yes. You are better off. You are just cannot or choose not to see it.
You say Saudis have agreed to invest 600 Bn? In what or how?
It is called a “search engine.” Try using one sometime. In the meantime, allow me to show you the news, Trump, Saudis secure $600B investment deal to include billions in US defense weapons
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5297426-trump-saudi-investment-deal/
Be sure to read the whole article.
More Trump winning, investments and purchases for America, Qatar Airways signs deal to purchase 160 Boeing jets during Trump visit
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5299754-qatar-airways-boeing-jet-agreement/
While Americans fly in planes with doors and wheels falling off . Glad we could help out cutter with those new planes. Glad cutter is providing jobs for Americans so we can eat. Thanks cutter!
Upstate, thanks for supporting me with an even deeper dive into the factors that make our point. People that scream, and I do mean scream, that we have been in a nightmare since January live in a panic stricken, media driven juvenile fake reality.
HullBobby,
You are welcome. Seems some people are very misinformed about a number of things.
Sorry Hullbobby.
I was answering Ano but hit the post the comment to soon.
Sorry, those factors don’t better for better off.
For you, others it is.
Dustoff, try English, it is what most of us use here.
Sorry Dustoff, you seem like one of the good guys here.
“Just because some media says so doesn’t make it true” well ain’t that a kick in the jorts. For the past 2 decades, you numbnuts have done nothing but tell us to trust the media, that the media never lies. What’s Jake Tapper up to right now, huh?
-Rabble
The border is not closed – 120k new H1-B invaders were recently approved. We need to shut down all immigration, including legal varieties, until ALL illegals are removed – probably upwards of 30 million. We’re off to a very visible but very slow start
I read a suggestion recently that said the cure for this lack of speed of removal of illegals – just shut the door to any new legal immigration until ALL the illegals have been removed.
It’s nice to have fewer darkies around.
Oh, and shut off the F-1 visas too!
No legal immigration until the illegals are out. It’s called applying pressure to get it done
I won’t be better off until all of my enemies have been incinerated by hydrogen bombs.
Then you will never be better off.
How marvelous!
Stupid retort
let me guess the 3/4 liberal women judges will rule with their emotions and IGNORE the constitution and all laws!
Roberts will just calculate to hurt republicans the most he can over the longest period!
BTW all judges, congress and president…should be term limited to 12 years!
I don’t want these liberal judges just overruled…I want them Punished!
Sadly I am prepared to be disappointed by the Court once again. Somehow, someway Roberts and/or Barrett will create out of the ether a way to not stop these nationwide injunctions.
I hope I am wrong, but how many times can I allow myself to be shocked by this “conservative” Court?
Fact: for at least 50 years at least a handful of American citizens have been totally stripped of all their constitutional rights without any due process. Never convicted of any crime.
American totalitarianism has been around, destroying innocent Americans, for at least 50 years.
Every U.S. Supreme Court, every Congress and every President has knowingly participated in these false imprisonment programs.
Trump may be worse but the constitutional system was already broken!
Oh, look! GBA’s (green-background anonymous) communist overlords have given him fresh orders this morning. He is to write vague gibberish with no details and no meaning. His prior orders never to tell the truth remain in place.
One of the big problems with nationwide injunctions is the asymmetry. No matter how many district courts reject a request, only one is necessary for success.
If nationwide injunctions are rejected, class actions will take their place to seek to accomplish the same thing.
But I think that if a class action request is rejected, that binds the class as a whole, so they can’t simply seek out another district court. If that is correct, then at least the asymmetry would be avoided.
Roberts better produce a favorable outcome for the administration on this question or the tinpot dictator district court leftist judges are gonna have a heyday at America’s expense.. Judicial review is one thing but judicial executive action by unelected Judge Leroy of Podunk, Iowa isn’t gonna cut it.
“Roberts better produce a favorable outcome for the administration on this question or the tinpot dictator district court leftist judges are gonna have a heyday at America’s expense”
You are dreaming. Roberts will do nothing but what he does best: risk evasion at the expense of diligence and integrity. He will do his best to find a way to avoid clearly addressing the Constitutionality of Federal district court judges deliberately circumventing the powers enumerated to the Executive nationwide, while exonerating the Supreme Court of responsibility for that failure. That would no doubt be a difficult tightrope for an honest man to negotiate, but a skilled dissembler like Roberts can probably dance across it.
You may be right, but as with Dobbs, a Court majority could solve this problem without him.
Ahhh, the SCOTUS Two-Step, that’s the second time we’ve fallen for it this month.
The presidency is a mere 4 years unlike justices are a lifetime. For them they can say one thing today thinking it’ll come back around in 15 years. There’s one inequity…or 8 years v. 20 years. This must be considered.
That’s how Dobbs and affirmative action happen.
Professor Turley mentions the class action factor – isn’t it interesting that since the court agreed to hear this case, SCOTUS issued the infamous “midnight ruling” declaring the government declared terrorist gang members a “class” even before the lower court ruled and has now since DENIED the motion???? Talk about an elephant in the room!
that’s…. that’s not how that works. The government cannot declare a “class” in a class action lawsuit. What you wrote doesn’t make sense.
42 executive orders in Biden’s first 100 days. 142 in Trump’s first 100 days. But yeah 3x is definitely the same.
Cleaning up a mess is far more involved than making a mess. Of course there needed to be so many, we’re talking about undoing the mess that LBJ started and was piled on by every dem up to and including whomever had control of the autopen while Joe was sleeping.
Cleaning up a mess? Nine of the last 10 recessions were caused by and occurred during republican administrations. The Great Recession was caused in part by W’s policies. It took a man with a law degree from Harvard to put things right. Oh, that same president got the affordable healthcare bill through congress.
The last time we had a balanced budget was during the democratic administration of Bill Clinton.
Joe Biden got us through the COVID recession. Yes, prices shot up due to lack of supply and too much money.
Republican state the government is the problem. When in office they do everything to prove they are right.
Obama was a major factor in the social destruction we are enduring and LBJ initiated our tragic economic slavery into the socialist welfare situation that is bleeding this nation dry. Add on millions of human flotsam pouring over our borders thanks to democrats and rinos (just call them democrat-lite) enabling the civil and economic rape of our nation and we are lucky to have Americans guided by our founding principles willing to fumigate this nation and remove the taint of communism/ antisemitism.
“Joe Biden got us through the Covid recessions” may be the dumbest line ever written on this site, and there have been many dumb lines written by the likes of George, Gigi and Dennis.
The Covid Recession only occurred because Democrats shut down the country for months and in some places years.
More people died from Covid under Biden, but the networks stopped counting in November 2020.
Biden spent trillions AFTER COVID WAS OVER.
Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” exacerbated inflation.
Biden’s Transportation guy took months off after he and his husband adopted a baby.
Biden’s push on “Green” garbage harmed the economy and grifted billions to cronies of Democrats.
When Bill Clinton ran for president he veered towards the center. Modern democrats are jumping off the left side of the world.
Bill Clinton and Perot was it? Ross Perot saying about NAFTA , if you do that there’ll be a great sucking sound . How right he was.
“Bill Clinton and Perot was it? ”
Ross Perot ran an independent campaign. Clinton’s Republican opponent in 1996 was Bob Dole. It is quite understandable if you do not remember Dole or his campaign, because it barely existed. Dole was an inveterate RINO, and touting his status as a disabled vet seemed to comprise 95% of his campaign’s election strategy. It seems almost as if there was some Deep State or something like that working to keep Clinton in power… However, you are correct about Perot anticipating many of the effects of NAFTA and other globalization initiatives. It took a little longer than he predicted, but that is a common failing of economic predictions: accuracy about the “what” is far easier than accuracy on the “when”…
“Nine of the last 10 recessions were caused by and occurred during republican administrations.” And all of the inflations were caused by Democrats or oil shocks, and had to be mopped up by the GOP, leading to recessions.
“The Great Recession was caused in part by W’s policies.” The Great Recession was caused wholly by loose lending policies initiated by Democrats to create more housing for… wait for it… Democrats.
“The last time we had a balanced budget was during the democratic administration of Bill Clinton.” It was not actually balanced. They used the Social Security Trust Fund to mask part of that deficit. That money was already allocated to future Social Security payments but is all gone, thanks in large part to the man with a law degree from Harvard.
“Joe Biden got us through the COVID recession. Yes, prices shot up due to lack of supply and too much money.” But from CNBC: “The Covid-19 recession ended in April 2020, the National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday. That makes the two-month downturn the shortest in U.S. history.” Biden wasn’t in office long enough to make a difference in April 2020.
I’m not a lawyer, Wally, but I am trained in economics. Stay on your lane, please.
Diogenes,
Great comment and spot on, on real economics.
Even Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary Larry Summers said Biden’s economic policies would create a inflationary environment we have not seen in generations.
Too much government created the crash. To solve the problems, the Dodd-Frank bill was passed. That increased intervention but didn’t attack the leading cause of the problem, government interference.
I can’t remember the banks where I received tremendous interest on my free money. I knew the federal government would cover the debt when the bank failed, which it did, but I figured I could game the system while the bank still had assets. I didn’t invest in the other banks because their interest rates were too low. They were prudent.
There was a limit on the amount one could guarantee, but Uncle Sam made it easy with the words ‘in trust for’. That permitted multiple accounts for the same person that the government insured.
The bank was trying to expand quickly using these funds, so they paid extremely high interest rates to get more cash.
Uncle Sam did the nation in, and then Dodd-Frank dug a deeper hole. The DEI group ensured that, however far Dodd-Frank dug the hole, it could grow even further.
Hey, Wally, ponder this: The Great Recession was due to collapse of subprime mortgage obligations, mortgages given to people who were predicted to be unable to repay them. This was the product of Democrat politicians in Congress whose bright idea was to create wealth in poor people through home ownership and home value appreciation. They did this by strong-arming banks with threats of crippling investigations if the banks used adverse financial criteria to deny mortgage loan applications. If you do some research, you will find that, in New York at least, this effort was led by Chuckie Schumer when he was a congressman.
Obama’s “affordable health care” led to health care that is neither affordable nor, in many cases, quality health care. As Justice Roberts stated, ObamaCare is simply a tax on some citizens to pay the health care costs of other citizens. Explain to me why you should be legally forced to pay for my health care?
While Clinton’s balanced budget may have been in part due to responsible spending by a Republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich, the reduction in government spending that led to a balanced budget during the Clinton years was largely due to the “peace dividend” that resulted from our victory in the Cold War, a direct result of the leadership of president Ronald Reagan. As I recall, those Reagan policies (“peace through strength”, Star Wars, missiles in West Germany) were vociferously condemned by leftist Democrats.
You dismiss the Biden COVID recession as due to “too much money”. Do you mean that Biden’s $7 trillion budget blowout and his Green New Deal was not responsible? You must be willfully blind or delusional, or both.
Here is another mess Trump is cleaning up, made by Biden. Biden and Democrats who insisted they needed a “bill” passed to do the job.
CBP Acting Commissioner Pete Flores,
“Traditional migrant corridors are seeing historically low numbers,” Flores said, according to his statement provided to the Homeland Security subcommittee. “For example, the number of migrants passing through the Darien Gap in Panama decreased 99.5% from 36,841 in March 2024 to 194 in March of 2025.”
“Office of Field Operations saw a 93% decrease in inadmissibility encounters at southwest border ports of entry, including a 94% decrease in unaccompanied alien children.”
He later stated, crime gang “coyotes,” who transport children across the border, essentially has ended.
Trump did all that in four months.
Oh Wally
What the heck?
Yes, cleaning up a huge mess! The Biden administration did a great deal of damage to our country and around the world.
I say “the administration” as Biden was the figurehead (who mostly slept and hung out on the beach) and his wife and a handful of radicals along with the auto pen did the massive damage.
The “Big Guy” is washed up. He has no more influence and Hunter is out of a job as a grifter. Many of the insiders are turning on him and writing “tell all” books.
His presidency was a disaster! I feel he is the worst President in our history. Some would argue James Buchanan takes the number one slot. Either way, ol’ Joe from Scranton is in the top two worst ever president.
You’re comparing the wrong term.
So, what are the possible outcomes in deciding today’s case? Would it remove injunctions currently in place?
My question is, why do District Courts even accept such political policy-seeking lawsuits? Why can’t they turn away the lawsuit with:
“The policy outcome you are seeking as plaintiff(s) is a matter for consideration during the next election. Elections are the way The People decide policy issues, not here the Courts.”
“My question is, why do District Courts even accept such political policy-seeking lawsuits? Why can’t they turn away the lawsuit with…”
We need more Federal judges like Stephanie Haines, who recently did just that in her decision (although the case was accepted):
Federal judge allows Trump admin to deport alleged Tren de Aragua members under Alien Enemies Act
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/federal-judge-allows-trump-admin-deport-alleged-tren-de-aragua-members-under
“Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote.”
The law schools appear to be Madrasa’s that radicalize the students. It stands to reason that the products of such institutions will often take a left leaning tact. As Pascal warned, there is a difference between following and applying the law rather than making the law from the bench.
I cannot speak directly to law schools but I do know (from direct experience) that many students enter institutions of higher education in the past twenty years and within a short time are radicalized.
Prof. Turley.. really glad to hear of your real-time reviewing.. Thank you.. see you on ‘X..’
“Nationwide injunctions”, potentially mandates from over 600 judges, are a travesty, but I blame Congress. It could be argued that they are a natural outcome of a nation increasing governed by Executive Orders. Congress needs to do its job and legislate. It is high time it stopped being a home for grifters looking to get rich from lobbyists and insider trading.
..well said..! but you forgot to mention also being a home for junket takers for photo ops over margaritas…
What a great opportunity for Supreme Court Justices to begin to return the United States to original principles, namely, self-governance by the People through elected representatives in Congress.
“What a great opportunity for Supreme Court Justices to begin to return the United States to original principles, namely, self-governance by the People through elected representatives in Congress.”
Unfortunately, the number of current SCOTUS who seem to understand that the original principles as articulated in the Constitution hold precedence over every item on their personal agenda is limited to two: Thomas and Alito.