Below is my column in the Hill on the continuing confusion over national or universal injunctions. The last week has shown that this chronic injunctivitis must end.Here is the column:
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 have called “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 to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures. Any one judge can halt the entire government.
Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law. Kagan lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.”
In his first term, Trump faced a more than 450 percent increase in the number of such injunctions over the number issued under Obama — a rise from 12 to 64. The number then went down to just 14 under former President Joe Biden. With Trump back in office, district courts have now outstripped that record and may surpass the total from the first term in the first year.
However, when the pending case came up before the Supreme Court on one of the Trump injunctions, Kagan suggested that this was “different,” because Trump was clearly wrong. In oral argument, Kagan snapped at the Solicitor General: “Every court is ruling against you.” It was a curious point coming from a justice who had previously acknowledged that challengers were forum-shopping by going to favorable judges, as with the current cases coming out of largely blue states.
Kagan did not explain where the line should be drawn, leading to speculation on when something would be viewed as “just sorta wrong” or “really, really wrong.”
This week, the Supreme Court enjoined the Maine House of Representatives from denying State Representative Laurel Libby her right to speak and vote on the floor. In an outrageous action, the Democratic majority had effectively taken Libby’s constituents hostage by telling her that, unless she apologized for identifying a transgender athlete in public comments, she could not vote. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to lift the ban, with Kagan joining the more conservative justices.
However, in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who has favored the injunctions in the Trump cases) stressed that there was no need for an injunction here because there were no “significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks” or where Libby’s lack of a vote would “impact the outcome.”
It again left many scratching their heads on what Jackson would consider a “significant vote.” Moreover, thousands of Maine residents have been denied representation on the state House floor. That would seem significant even if the justice did not find certain bills to be sufficiently weighty.
These different approaches only deepen the uncertainly over the standards for lower courts.
Just in case the Supreme Court doubted the need for greater clarity on the use of these injunctions, Boston District Judge Myong J. Joun, perfected the record this week.
The Biden appointee had just been reversed by the Supreme Court last month when he issued a temporary restraining order for the Trump Administration to pay out frozen grants worth more than $65 million. The administration had raised questions about the basis for the grants and ordered a review.
Usually, a temporary order freezes the parties from changing the status quo to allow for review. It is difficult to appeal such an order, and the parties generally wait for a couple of weeks to seek review after the court issues a preliminary injunction.
But Judge Joun wanted to use the temporary restraining order to force the payments to happen, changing the status quo permanently. This did not seem like temporary relief, since money is not likely to come back after it is paid out.
This week, Joun was back with another injunction. This time he enjoined an effort of Education Secretary Linda McMahon to initiate a reduction-in-force and prepare for the potential elimination of the Department of Education.
Despite the false claims that Trump’s underlying executive order actually shut down the department, it stated that McMahon should, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
While Joun admits that this was not a department shutdown, he still enjoined these efforts in an 88-page decision full of sweeping, dramatic language that sounds more like a policy paper than a restrained judicial order.
The court simply declared that even a reduction in force would make it “effectively impossible for the department to carry out its statutorily mandated functions.”
Many on the left again celebrated a judge effectively micromanaging the executive branch. Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, even seemed to add a threat — that “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory.”
Insurrection aside, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this.
Despite a majority of justices harrumphing for years about these injunctions, lower court judges continue to issue them with abandon. In the meantime, presidents like Trump are looking at two years of litigation before they can make meaningful changes, including downsizing the government.
For the Supreme Court, it has become madness as emergency motions pile up every morning after executive programs are frozen overnight.
The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity and tell them not to call you in the morning.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
“Heaven has a wall, a gate and a strict immigration policy.”
“Hell has open borders.”
– Mac’s Fresh Market, Arkansas, Louisiana
John Roberts wants to be remembered as another John Marshall, but at the rate he is going, he will be remembered much more like Roger B. Taney.
You are so right.
Taney failed to strike down Lincoln’s denial of fully constitutional secession and subsequent unconstitutional war, including his entire constitution-killing “Reign of Terror.”
“and subsequent unconstitutional war”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but insurrectionist slave Democrat states chose to start that war by firing on and attacking first the Star Of The West, and then four months later Fort Sumter. Cupcake, you don’t claim you were forced into an unconstitutional war when you threw the first two punches.
And nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Black Americans are only property.
Oh wait!!!! BBBBUUUTTTTT… LINCOLN MADE US DO IT!
But Taney made the lives of totalitarian Marxist Democrats whole by ruling that Black Americans were merely “property”.
Not going well.
“Federal judges want to build a force of armed private security under wild plan to take on Trump”
They want fences, too. Keep going and they might get those fences…designed to keep folks in.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14748223/federal-judges-army-private-security-forces-donald-trump.html
At least there is a hint there that they are beginning to realize that some of their usurpations of presidential authority might be unpopular with a lot of citizens.
Doubtless they draw some consolation from remaining very popular with murdering criminal cartels who want to remain in America and who oppose border fences.
So the judicial branch is not satisfied with being a second legislative branch with supremacy; it wants to obtain complete dominion and sovereignty?
I read an article today about how regulations shut down Joe Biden’s construction projects. Billions spent and only 58 charging stations built. Injunctions were used by the left to shut down his projects. All they had to do was search for an environmentalist judge and presto everything came to a screeching halt in the great blue state of California. I have to agree with Obama that elections have consequences. The hand wringing and gnashing of teeth was deafening when injunctions were used to stop Obama’s agenda. Now one judge shutting down Trumps agenda is considered an act of patriotism by our leftist followers. The smell of bile wafting as from a subway bathroom at 3 AM on a Saturday morning is palpable causing those who drank nary a drop to add to the pungent aroma. The practice should be aretchted.
I would be remiss if I didn’t honor the fallen today, the bravest of all that would give their life for others.
Mentally infirmed over educated boorish tyrants, that’s how I would define the current crop of democrats.
The majority of the Judicial Courts of America, from the local to the supreme, it matters not what the Constitution or the laws there-under say, they will produce a product that is relegated to the political ideology of the deciding judge or judges regardless possible jeopardy to the Republic.
Leaving with a few words from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 85 “Conclusion” (may I suggest reading the entirety):
“…The charge of a conspiracy against the liberties of the people, which has been indiscriminately brought against the advocates of the plan, has something in to too wanton and too malignant not to excite the indignation of every man who feels in his own bosom refutation of the calumny…”
“Let us now pause and ask ourselves whether, in the course of these papers, the proposed Constitution has not been satisfactorily vindicated from the aspersions thrown upon it; and whether it has not been shown to be worthy of the public approbation, and necessary to the public safety and prosperity. Every man is bound to answer these questions to himself, according to the best of his conscience and understanding, and to act agreeably to the genuine and sober dictates of his judgment. This is a duty from which nothing can give him a dispensation. ‘This is one that he is called upon, nay, constrained by all the obligations that form the bands of society, to discharge sincerely and honestly. No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, or to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act. Let him beware of an obstinate adherence to party; let him reflect that the object upon which he is to decide is not a particular interest of the community, but the very existence of the nation; and let him remember that a majority of America has already given its sanction to the plan which he is to approve or reject.”
In oral argument, Kagan snapped at the Solicitor General: “Every court is ruling against you.”
it’s a good thing Kagan was not on SCOTUS back in the 1960s when Loving v Virginia was decided. The Lovings (Richard Loving and Mildred Loving) were an inter-racial couple, convicted and sentenced to prison by a Circuit Court Judge in Caroline County (Virginia) for marrying as a white man and black woman. They appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court and lost. They then appealed to SCOTUS and won but SCOTUS had to rule against their previous ruling Pace vs Alabama (1883), which supported Alabama’s statute that forbade the interbreeding of people from different races. As if any one individual were 100% pure genetically from one race. As if! For all of the claims by conservative white purists, they’re all mutts.
Taking a page from Kagan’s quip to the Solicitor General, she would have snapped at the attorneys representing the Lovings with a similar fallacy: “every court is ruling against you” vis a vis Caroline County District Court, Virginia Supreme Court, SCOTUS Pace v Alabama 1883, etc.
Nothing good is going to come from SCOTUS, following the trajectory of Congress-critters. Look for another “summer of love” as Independent Bob suggested yesterday
Evolution applies to all species. We should all expect more from ourselves in order to survive evolutionary pressures, e.g. stupid decisions from our leaders
The Justice Kagan quote from oral argument that you refer to has been taken out of context by many people (including Professor Turley to some extent) and I encourage everyone to listen to the actual argument. In summary, Kagan in her questions and comments was concerned that if an administration is losing in several lower courts on an EO that is trying to break new legal ground (like the birthright citizenship one), an administration without a national injunction may have an incentive to never appeal the case to the Supreme Court to rule on the merits because the EO would be in effect in many parts of the country and if it eventually reached the Supreme Court to rule on the merits it could take several years.
So, instead you flip the script on the President with presumptive powers under Article II so that he must carry the burden of proof in justifying the exercise of those very powers granted to him by the Constitution?
Framing: U.S. Constitution meets Bizarro World!
Biden lost on hie EO for non payment of debt for college. Even after the SS court said NO!
Yet he kept on canceling them…. Now who was losing
And openly BRAGGING about it.
Why would the EO be in effect in much of the country ?
If the actions of govenrment are unequivocally unconstitutional – then all judges left and right in every district should rule against them.
as a rule or atleast once a rule, was that SCOTUS does not take a case until there is a circuit split.
Before one court – the supreme court takes action that is nationwide in impact, it usually waits for district courts to DISAGREE so that it has the benefits of multiple different judicial oppinions AND it is clear that this is an issue that needs the supreme court to settle.
There is actually good reason for nationwide injuctions. But they should be extremely rare, and that standards that must be met to issue on should be incredibly hard to meet.
Our statutory and case law dictate that, but lower courts are NOT following that.
The left rants that Trump might ignore a court order.
The lower courts are ignoring the law, the constitution the rules of judicial procedure,
and making it up as they go.
That is unsurprising of the left.
The solution to “chronic injunctivitis” is actually much simpler, especially with courts preoccupied with ‘proper notification’:
Whether by law or, if necessary, constitutional amendment, the SCOTUS must take up for consideration and provide judgement on ANY lower court’s national injunction within 7 days of the lower court’s issuance (that would be calendar days, Johnny!).
Given the propensity of lower court appointees to adorn the entire country with their proclamations, this should result in a very significant increase in workload and inversely proportional decrease in vacation time, book deals time, participating in Broadway plays time and fishing outings for the SCOTUS members. And nothing is more efficient in prompting government employees into action than threats to their pay-scale or time off. My guess is that, under such circumstances, John Roberts will be forced to deal with “chronic injunctivitis”. Remember Johnny, it would mean less time for social events and more ‘deliberation’ time.
#74. Please cite the cases discussed in the article, PT , or list them at the end of the article. Thank you.
#74. Judge Myong J. Joun, Biden appointee, is an immigrant from South Korea, was homeless as a child, worked at Dollar Tree while attending Suffolk law school at night. His motto is- be a human first and a lawyer second.
Is it common at the Joun’s level to issue a remedy reversing the executive? I presume …did the executive McMahon release the grants? I presume the executive can sell school property to reclaim the grants? Start with Suffolk…
#74. This batch of grants was for DEI training. Joun might have recused himself?
Begin each argument with– the US is bankrupt.
Jonathan: Memorial Day is supposed to be a solemn day of remembrance of those who sacrificed their lives for the country. For DJT it was something else entirely. On Truth Social DJT thought it was a day for celebration, like a birthday: “Happy Memorial Day to all”.
After that it was all down hill. It was a litany of hate filled rhetoric we have become used to from the Trumpster. He called the Dems “scum”…”that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country through warped radical left minds, who allowed 21,000,000 million people to illegally enter our country, many of them being criminals and the mentally insane, through an open border”. DJT declared federal judges “monsters” for protecting “murderers, drug dealers, rapists, gang members,…”
Don’t you wish for the days when presidents had the dignity to try to honor our fallen heroes instead of spewing out unhinged vengeful rhetoric? I do. But the Trumpster is incapable of integrity or respect for those who gave their lives. And we will see more of this vile stuff the next 3 yrs and 7 months! God help the USA!
Oh shut up. The democrat party is the largest hate group in the nation. Give us an example of this “hateful rhetoric” from Trump. You’re full of it.
What logical fallacy is explained by the utterance, “Oh shut up”?
Just wondering…
I guess you know nothing about our Dennis. The fool is a loon and never gets it right
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
That objective becomes more challenging with each passing day.
Skeptic – everyone does not get the benefit of the doubt,
That is specifically why credibility and respect must be earned.
Dennis has worked hard to burn his credibility to ash – he long ago lost the right to the benefit of the doubt.
“What logical fallacy is explained by the utterance, “Oh shut up”?” Oh dear… help for you is on its way!
Sea-lioning
Sea-lioning is a type of malicious trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless questions, requests for evidence, etc, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
Perhaps the pointlessness of their deaths on foreign soil to feed our money to the war machine while attempting to enforce our will in other counties while raping their natural resources speaks for itself, but some choose to ignore the fact that our youth is fed into a meat grinder, murdered for nothing more than elite power and profit.
“Perhaps the pointlessness of their deaths on foreign soil to feed our money to the war machine while attempting to enforce our will in other counties while raping their natural resources speaks for itself”
You’re choosing to ignore the fact that we are losing 100,000+ of our youth each year? Not into that “war machine meat grinder on foreign soil” that you babbled about – but right here on their native soil, killed by the drugs that The Oval Office House Plant enabled Mexican drug cartels and their ChiCom agents to freely run across our borders?
You’re taking a lot of risks sharing that crack pipe Hunter Biden was using while serving as President AutoPen.
I yearn for the days when dignity, comity, and mutual respect guided both sides of the aisle. I don’t pick a political team — or any team,* for that matter — I try to approach issues through the lens of critical thinking.
Does Trump get things wrong? Absolutely. But he hardly has the market cornered on mistakes.
When you outsource your thinking to a political tribe, you’re no longer thinking — you’re letting others do it for you. Sure, it’s easier. But it’s far less accurate. Get in the trenches. That’s where the truth tends to live.
*Other than the Kansas City Chiefs.
Dennis,
What part of what Trump said was false ?
Do you think that we are required to be civil to people who have been working to destroy the country and erode our freedom ?
Memorial day is to honor those who fought against YOUR authoritarianism.
Integrity means telling the Truth – not spraying us all with silver tongued lies.
Or as in the case of the last president – demented lies.
“It was a litany of hate filled rhetoric we have become used to from the Trumpster. He called the Dems “scum”…”
Completely different from you and especially The Oval Office House Plant spending the last four years calling Trump Hitler, and those who would vote for him instead of Biden “fascists?
Dennis, do you think you have any credibility here while pining for the civility that we heard from The Oval Office House Plant – who you repeatedly assured us was as mentally as sharp as a tack?
Do take some time to assure us of the integrity of President Ten Percent, who as Vice President Bribery Biden ended up with more Suspicious Activity Reports filed concerning his bribes and money laundering than all the drug cartels put together.
That would not be nearly as many injunctions if Trump followed the law and Constituion.
What law wasn’t followed? How as the Constitution It’s the activist judges that aren’t staying in their lane. We elected Trump not them.
“what law wasn’t followed”? Try the Constitution. Your hero cannot invalidate birthright citizenship or eliminate habeas corpus or the right to due process by executive order or based on his whims. “Chronic injunctivitis” will end when someone finally gets through Trump’s head that he is not a king, that the Constitution provided for governance through Congress and not executive orders. But since Trump only hires people based on their refusal to stand up to him instead of qualification, no one will be able to get the message through. If they tried, he’d fire them,
Changing your login profile name from Franke to Mary Smith doesnt convince anyone that youre a different person. You are an example of desperation
Franke: OK–tell me, did Trump try to rescind birthright citizenship via an Executive Order–or, did I just make that up? Is it true that dumbaxx Kristi Noem said the following about the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of “habeas corpus”. From “USA Today”:
“Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, couldn’t define habeas corpus when asked to do so at a recent Senate hearing, instead flipping the constitutional provision into a presidential authority to deport individuals.
Noem, testifying before a congressional committee on Tuesday, May 20, called habeas corpus “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.” Noem gave that response when Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., asked her to define the legal provision. Hassan interrupted Noem, remarking her definition was “incorrect,” and went on to define the legal concept.
The Trump administration has floated the idea of revoking habeas corpus to expand the president’s power to deport migrants who are in the U.S. illegally.”
“Habeas Corpus” is defined as follows (From Wikipedia): “Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/ ⓘ; from Medieval Latin, lit. ’you should have the body’)[1] is a legal procedure by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and requesting that the court order the individual’s custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.”
And I’M “desperate” according to you? Why can’t you defend Trump without attacking people who write things you don’t like?
Says the person who just wrote, in part, “Is it true that dumbaxx Kristi Noem…”.
“USA Today”
LOL—HAHAHAHAH
The video is on line–look it up. Oh, wait. You’re a MAGA–facts don’t and won’t faze you, including the implications that someone who is supposedly the head of Homeland Security doesn’t know what habeas corpus means or that it’s a right to those incarcerated by the government to question the validity of their imprisonment. So, you attack the source of the information.
The Video is irrelevant. Looking it up at best shows us a Senator playing Gotcha with the Sec DHS.
The relevant question is not “can you define Habeaus”.
It is “are deportees givern the oportunity to petition for Habeaus that the law allows.
And the answer is yes. Trump is following the Habeaus requirements for deportation that the law and courts established decades ago.
“You’re a MAGA–facts don’t and won’t faze you” And here you are, fresh from four years of assuring us that The Oval Office House Plant you supported, defended, and voted for was sharp as a tack, working young staffers into the ground, and a gen-yew-wine Constitutional expert.
Hey Mary.
Remember DACA. Was it legal?
Heck NO and even O-dumber knew it….. Yet it’s still here.
So any other dumb questions??? fire away
Mary,
READ YOUR OWN DEFINITION.
How would the detention of an illegal alien be “unlawful” ?
One of very few ways would be if that person is NOT an illegal alien.
The AAEA and the INA are the laws that illegal aliens are being detained and then deported under.
The AEA allows the deportation of anyone of a given nationality whether they are in in the US legally or not. Their only recourse is Habeaus, and the only Habeuas claim they have is “I am not the person you claim I am”
Only 1 in 100 Habeaus claims ever results in hearing. Nearly all are just denied by the courts.
The INA allows the deportation of an illegal alien who is in the US who has not been here for more than 2 years, who has not properly applied for asylum immediately, and the only recourse is Habeaus – again “I am not the person you claim I am”
The deportation of those here for less than 2 years does not even require an Article II immigration court hearing. Just a finding by an ICE officer and immediate deportation.
That is US law. Trump is following it.
It is Biden that did not follow the law.
It is these judges that are not following the law.
If you do not like the INA or the AEA – work to change them.
Until you do – Trump can deport those in the US illegally with very little due process, and the courts are bound by law and constitution not to interfere.
Once again it is not Trump that is lawless – it is the left.
OOOOOOOOOOO yes he can
Remember when O-dumber issue DACA when he knew he had no power to do it….
“Your hero cannot invalidate birthright citizenship”
Not my hero. But he is your president.
Trump is going to lose on the birthright citizenship EO.
One of FEW that he is going to lose on.
“or eliminate habeas corpus”
He is not eliminating Habeaus. The courts have been clear on that. The Trump administration has been clear on that.
But you should have listened to the left wing criminal defense attorney on CNN recently.
He files dozens of Habeaus petitions. He is lucky if 1 in 100 result in a hearing.
Habeaus is a very high bar. And it is the ONLY due process that SCOTUS is allowing on AEA claims. In these instances to win a Habeaus claim you must have a strong case that you are NOT the illegal alien that DHS is trying to deport just to get a hearing.
“the right to due process by executive order or based on his whims.”
There is no instance that Trump has tried to circumvent Due process.
Your under the delusion that Due Process means everyone gets a full jury trial for parking tickets. That is FALSE. The due process required for each infringement on the law is unique to that infringement. SCOTUS has determined that under the AEA you are entitled to file a habeaus petition. Again less than 1 in 100 of those even result in a hearing.
In general Habeaus is the only claim available to illegal immigrants in all cases.
Habeus is the only challenge allowed to most Article II immigration court decisions.
So Why is Judge Xinis still hearing the Garcia case ? The Immigration courts issued MULTIPLE deportation orders for Garcia. The only appeal available at this time to Garcia is Habeaus – and in his case that means proving he is NOT Abrego Garcia.
““Chronic injunctivitis” will end when someone finally gets through Trump’s head that he is not a king”
Ccontra the left it is the courts that seem to think they are king.
I know this is hard for you – but the LAW and CONSTITUTION in nearly all these cases is on Trumps side.
The president can fire anyone in the executive he wishes. SCOTUS just decided 7-2 in Trump’s favor on the ONE case in which a firing actually violated a law by congress, that based on previous Supreme court decisions – ones both the biden and Trump administrations relied on that Congress limiting the presidents power to fire members of the executive was unconstitutional.
SCOTUS also recently ruled in favor of DOGE.
“that the Constitution provided for governance through Congress and not executive orders.”
Constitutionally Congress make the laws that govern the country – and this is one of the reasons that Trump will lose the birthright citizenship case.
Constitutionally the president has near absolute and exclusive control of the operation of the executive.
Congress rarely has told the president who he can fire and SCOTUS has repeatedly said Congress can not tell the president who he can fire.
The AEA was passed by Congress.
The INA was passed by congress.
These are the laws Trump is using to deport illegal aliens. The minimal extent of due process required for those deportations was perscribed by those laws, and Trump is following those laws.
This also would make sense to you if you thought about it.
Illegal aliens are being deported – not executed.
We require a great deal of due process to execute someone – we require very little to send them HOME.
“Try the Constitution.”
Mary, would that be the Constitution that The Oval Office House Plant and Bolshevik Barack before him refused to follow? You felt any concerns for the Constitution when Bolshevik Barack announced he would replace Congress with his phone and his pen if Congress didn’t give him what he wanted? No concern when he wrote his insurance exchanges into Obamacare, replacing the Legislative Branch to do so?
Bolshevik Barack grifts by claiming he was a “constitutional law professor”, after all.
Any concerns when Bolshevik Barack and then President Ten Percent refused to honor their constitutional oath of office and uphold the laws of the United States? Like immigration laws.
Any concerns after you learned that your two Politburo Chairmen serving in the White House instructed their Attorney Generals and multiple FBI Directors to go to Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts and perjure themselves by claiming the Soviet Democrats’ “Trump-Russia Dossier” was all 100% verified intelligence agency information.
Mary: your only concern about the Constitution is whether it will make good toilet paper for you if you get caught short on your broom, far away from a bathroom
Citations and links please?
Thank you.
Which did he break? Unlike what Biden did
Contra the left Trump is SLOWLY winning almost all these cases on appeal.
SCOTUS 7-2 decided that Trump can fire the board members of so called independent agencies.
If the president can constitutionally fire members of the executive that congress by law said that the president can’t fire – who exactly is it that the president can’t fire ? And whjy have so many lower courts gotten that wrong ?
This is just one example.
We are having a problem with SCOTUS because of these nationwide injunctions.
The problem is that because of the nationwide injunction these cases get expedited to the supreme courts emergency docket. Where SCOTUS is pushed to rush to judgement and the result tends to be messy poorly written Supreme Court oppinions = even when they rule in Trump’s favor.
The recent TX Tda case being a good example. Of all the justices only Alito and Thomas got it right – the appeal should have been dismissed, the lowercourts did nothing wrong – the plantiffs lied to the courts in their pleadings.
Instead we get a majority saying the AEA is likely to be held constitutional,
and that lower courts need to establish what constitutes due process for an AEA Habeaus claim.
SCOTUS slammed the district court judge for not doing precisely what he was doing – exactly what SCOTUS directed to after SCOTUS rules against the president ? By
Affirming the AEA is likely constitutional.
That Trump is likely to defeat an as applied challenge.
Directing the administration to NOT do what they were already NOT doing.
Directing the lower courts to DO what they were in the midst of doing when the plantiffs appeal took jurisdiction away from them.
If this is losing the Trump administration will be happy to lose all day every day.
“That would not be nearly as many injunctions if Trump followed the law and Constituion.”
There would be no injunctions if Democrat judges weren’t hoping they could rule the country after the DEI Hire lost the election to Trump.
Par for the course when the Bolshevik Bytches On Broomsticks show up to attempt to piss on our faces and claim it’s just magical fairy dust.
Expect civil war if they don’t take this up.
#9. <"Insurrection aside, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this."
Interesting. At Lexington and Concord it was a revolution. At Fort Sumter, it was an insurrection. At Medicine Tail Coulee, it was a battle and Custer's last one at that. At Jan. 6, it was an insurrection by the news media. When purple haired leftists attacked the Senate hearings for Neil M. Gorsuch, it was a mostly peaceful protest.
It's all so confusing…
It will never happen. This once venerable council of nine legal scholars is now a collection of compromised buffoons who issue only milk toast rulings, each afraid of his or her own shadow.
The ladies are a grave disappointment. They’re political.
Dear Prof Turley,
Justice divided cannot stand.
I suppose SCOTUS could neuter lesser judges, but that sounds like a [time] technicality (as opposed to the long, drawn-out traditional appeals process.). Which anti-Trump judges do you think should be so constrained?
note. and for future reference, which lesser judges are pro-Trump?
Otoh, SCOTUS could issue a TRO and TKO Trump’s outrageously excessive rule by EO decree .. . but I wouldn’t count on it.
That assumes The Unitary Executive Authority would be bound by mere mortal SCOTUS opinion.. . and you know what they say about assumptions.
special note. SCOTUS already has ‘ordered’ Trump to facilitate the return of Garcia (presumably to check for MS13 tattoos on his knuckles), but they might as well be whistling Dixie.
The Trump Apostle assumes he has a mandate from the people and God Almighty, and no judge is going to stand in his way.
*pride goeth before a fall.
DG, so what is your proposal for removing 10 million illegal immigrants admitted here in violation of immigration law for the purpose of politically marginalizing 51% of the American people? Scumbag Joe flooded the zone because he hoped it would permanently overwhelm legal institutions.
What is your solution for the 51% who voted for Trump and the 70% who support immigration law? How do you propose to lower the carbon footprint with 10, 20, 50 million more immigrants from the third world? How do you propose to solve the housing problem young people face against subsidized housing for illegals. How do you propose to stop the Democrats from doing this, again?
The Chief Justice was shockingly creative at rescuing Obamacare, but he seems remarkably short of ideas to rescue the rest of us from the subversion of immigration law. Do you share his reluctance? If so, give a justification for the rest of us, please.
Presidents are the executive branch and they get to rule the people under them by EO decree. There’s nothing outrageous about it. What’s outrageous is these unelected, inferior, activist judges behaving like they’re the president and substituting their judgement and policy preferences for his.
Citations for Presidential authority that “they get to rule the people” please?
Thank you.
“Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. ”
I would note you selectively edited the quote.
Executive Orders are orders to the people UNDER the president – that is members of the executive branch.
One of the reasons that the birthright citizenship EO is unconstitutional is that it is more than a direction to the executive.
“Citations for Presidential authority that “they get to rule the people” please?”
Sealioning
Sealioning is a type of malicious trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
Quit living off Cheetos in your Mom’s sewing room and do your own homework instead of attempting to develop expertise sealioning the audience.
Slightly Off Topic. Happy Memorial Day
Stay safe out there. And remember, don’t drink and drive.
Thank you, Professor Turley, for taking a strong stand. Too bad our boneless wonder at the head of the Supreme Court doesn’t get it. He’d rather admonish Trump than stop the Democrats from destroying the court system. Good ol’ Bushee appointee, ever the never Trumper.
As for Michael Mann’s comment, bring it. We’ll show him climate change.
Jonathan: Right-wing ideologues often think short term. They demand instant gratification. You are no exception as you call for SCOTUS to limit universal or nationwide injunctions. Such limitations could come back to haunt you.
Suppose a Dem wins the 2028 election–that’s assuming DJT would give up power. And further suppose the new president issues a slew of EOs–one of which abolishes all of DJT’s orders eliminating DEI policies in all government agencies like the military. That would set off a charge to federal court by right-wing groups to stop the enforcement of the new EO. And that lawsuit would be filed in a red state, like Texas, where a sympathetic judge issues an injunction to prohibit the implementation of the EO. In a world where nationwide injunctions are prohibited such an injunction would only apply to the judicial district in which the lawsuit was filed. Not particularly helpful if you want the EO prohibited nationwide. So as I have said before, be careful what you wish for!
Are you implying that the dems would use this to their partisan advantage to completely gut our constitution? We know that this is their ultimate goal so cautioning us about what we already anticipate seems a waste. What we should be doing is trying and convicting each and every political operative that has broken a law and send them to that “museum” in an island in SF Bay.
Mr Dumbo, isn’t that what the professor just stated about Kagan …that’s the exact point he just made, or did you miss that! There need to be clear guidelines and a higher threshold to issue such a broad Nationwide injunction 👍👍👍
Create a new federal district court for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with exclusive jurisdiction over all Executive Office matters, allowing expedited responses.
Annual certification in constitutional law required by all new district judges and personnel.
The remedy for such judicial authoritarianism is in elections not court! If you don’t like what a party leader does throw the bums out. THAT is democracy not judge rule.
Hey dennis. What party wanted to PACK the supreme court….
Hmmmmmmmmm
Dems to win?????????????
Fool have you seen your own DNC numbers. In the tank.
Dennis – the problem here is not just Nationwide Injunctions.
It is injunctions that violate the law and rules of judicial procedure.
SCOTUS just rules 7-2 that you can not issue a preliminary injunction regarding the president firing someone. They did not rule you can not issue a nationwide injunction, they ruled that the courts can’t issue ANY injunction.
There are requirements in the law and the rules of civil procedure regarding preliminary injuctions. Courts are granting nationwide injunctions that the do not even have the power to do in their own district.
There are rare circumstances where a court can issue a nationwide injunction.
The Birth Right citizenship case is probably the only EO that could properly be preliminary injuncted nationwide.
I doubt SCOTUS is going to bad nationwide injunctions.
But they are going to do something – because as is typical those on the left are NOT following the law or constitution – and that includes judges.
I do not know exactly what SCOTUS is going to do, but there appeared to be a clear majority that something must be done.
The right answer is for lower courts to follow the constitution, the law, and the rules of civil procedure.
But they are not doing that.
“suppose the new president issues a slew of EOs–one of which abolishes all of DJT’s orders eliminating DEI policies in all government agencies like the military.”
That is highly likely if a democrat is elected in 2028 – Biden did that in 2020.
“That would set off a charge to federal court by right-wing groups to stop the enforcement of the new EO.”
No it would result in cases challenging that EO as unconstitutional and violating the Civil Rights act and Title 9.
Ultimately those challenges will win.
SCOTUS is not going to get rid of Nationwide EO’s.
But they are going to make them harder to issue.
The question is whether lower courts will listen.
They are already issuing nationwide injunctions when they do not meet the criteria for injunctions specific to the plantiffs.
SCOTUS can say anything it wants.
The question is whether courts that are already not following the law the constitution and the rules of civil procedure will obey a supreme court order.
It is simple. At the end of the day the electorate is about power and money. They have no grasp of export/ import accounts, interest rates, national debt, or a likely war with China. It is work, wife, kids, car, beer, iPad, HULU, and how to pay for it all.
Public life has been distilled down into a race to burn up Trumps time in office so that the nations grifters survive. In California 30% of the population is on one welfare program or the other. Do not kid yourself. They ain’t letting go without a fight.
No one really gives a bleep if we go bankrupt because most people have nothing but debt. The selling of America in last 40 years is Trump’s fault. If he didn’t keep talking about it, we could finally get a good nights sleep.
It would be much better for the welfare state to be rolled back in an orderly, predictable fashion. Better than if it just allowed to crash suddenly (crime will be the result of unmet needs). When was the last time a government leader had the guts to ask The People to pitch in and sacrifice to solve an economic problem? So long as the burden is spread fairly and evenly, The People will respond.
Things Trump could ask Americans to do:
• save more $ and stop getting billed monthly for stuff we don’t need or use
• watch less movies & TV shows, and put more time into education/self-improvement
• quit wasting time on performative social media (fueling narcissism)
• consider all the advantages of marriage over voluntarily remaining single
• at the right time, have babies as married couples
• view people you hardly know as assets to be developed, not exploited
• when you propose solutions to problems, own the responsibility for the results (including unintended)
Ketanji is an idiot whose only qualifications to be on the court is her skin color.
I fully agree with the statement. They need to send Ketamji back to jp court. That is as far as her intellect goes.
She has many legal qualifications to be on the court that are summarized in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
The only qualification is nomination by the president and confirmation by the senate.
Does your comment further the political conversation in any meaningful way?
I’m not finding it helpful.
“Does your comment further the political conversation in any meaningful way?”
Sealioning
Sealioning is a type of malicious trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
Quit living off Cheetos in your Mom’s sewing room and do your own homework instead of attempting to develop expertise sealioning the audience.
Professor Turley,
The case in Maine was not a nationwide injunction. Did you intentionally call this “chronic injunctivitis” to include non-nationwide injunctions? Very misleading.
There is nothing wrong procedurally with what happened in Maine. The process worked exactly as it should.
Oh my! Such lofty statements. However, you are accurate in that the “System” worked exactly as it should. The Maine Legislature was corrected, & free speech was upheld! Bravo.
The process was only good in showing how fascist Democrats truly are. Imagine stripping a rep of a vote because she said the man playing sports against women was a MAN. You are supporting the 10 in a 90-10 issue, please keep talking.
You completely missed the point.
District and circuit court judges get overturned all the time. This is how the system was built.
It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the case.
This is no different from a conservative judge (like Aileen Cannon) issuing an injunction that got overturned.
In January 2025, Judge Cannon issued a temporary injunction to block the Justice Department from releasing a portion of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report that might contain crossover information related to the classified documents case, despite the case being closed.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later partially overturned this order, denying Trump’s request to block the report but allowing Cannon’s injunction to remain in place for three days.
Was Turley upset about Cannons injunction? Of course not. Because the process worked as it should.
PS…………… Jackie lost fool. He knew what he was illegal. He has NO backers
BINGO….