Trump Wins on Injunctions

[dinsdale]

This brings an end to judge shopping. Leftist activist federal district court judges just got smacked by Trump and SCOTUS. Completely insane that a single person in a position of judicial authority with an activist agenda is allowed to rule on anything IMHO let alone be able to bring a halt to implementing national government policy. Whatever happened to the law is blind. 

[Will B Good]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I believe it limits it to the individuals named in the suits, but I am not sure. 

 

I would happily defer to @jerrymahoney

 

 

Relief must now be tailored to the named plaintiffs—protecting only those who brought the suit—unless broader coverage is needed to ensure their complete relief ......whatever that means??

[jerrymahoney]

From the 119 page SCOTUS decision -- Alito concurrence:

 

Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing
to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements. Of course, Rule 23 may (next page)

permit the certification of nationwide classes in some discrete scenarios. But district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of “nationwide class relief,” and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.
* * *
Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party
standing and class certification would create a potentially
significant loophole to today’s decision. Federal courts
should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of
these tools. 

[illisdean]

Big win for Trump along with all the other MAGA WINNING "accomplishments" this week. And how about that historic peace agreement between Rawanda and the DRC!

 

 

[bubblegum]

Class action suit file by Democracy watch.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Class action suit file by Democracy watch.

 

Of course there will be.  But good luck with that. 

 

And good luck next time it's a Dem in the White House and the Repubs do the same to her.

 

[mikeymike100]

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

No articles are even out yet, Im reading and watching in real time.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

 

Read it and weep Trump haters.

Yes indeed, looks like the Supreme Court have come up Trumps again!

[illisdean]

 

[Yellowtail]

34 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Class action suit file by Democracy watch.

It's interesting that people howling about democracy are so dependent on using unelected judges/official to defy the will of the people. 

[jerrymahoney]

Democracy Watch files lawsuit against Ontario government's ... ???

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, illisdean said:

Big win for Trump along with all the other MAGA WINNING "accomplishments" this week. And how about that historic peace agreement between Rawanda and the DRC!

 

 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Democracy Watch files lawsuit against Ontario government's ... ???

That's one question 

[Captain Flack]

Comment on moderation removed.

 

Rule 13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues. You will not post a negative emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. You may send a private message to a moderator to discuss individual actions or you can email support (at) aseannow.com to discuss moderation policy and account suspensions.You will not block communication from moderators or Admin.

Aggression, personal attacks, or any form of abuse toward moderators will not be tolerated and will result in strict consequences.

There is absolutely no excuse for abusive behavior.

[transam]

1 hour ago, illisdean said:

Big win for Trump along with all the other MAGA WINNING "accomplishments" this week. And how about that historic peace agreement between Rawanda and the DRC!

 

 

Don, the turn on button is in the top right-hand corner............🙄

[jerrymahoney]

Right -- rhetorical. Maybe there was a mix-up on a Canadian case.

[SLOWHAND225]

13 hours ago, theblether said:

I don't have time just now - go read the utter destruction of Justice Jackson - she's been called out continually including a line about not wanting to read "boring legalese." 

 

Stunning stuff from the Supreme Court today, just magnificent. 

Good thing she can be impeached but it'd take 2/3rds and that will never happen. Still be good to see.

[Chomper Higgot]

First Class Action already filed:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69563661/casa-inc-v-trump/

[jerrymahoney]

And note to the above this is an AMENDED COMPLAINT to an existing case filed in January 2025.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

First Class Action already filed:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69563661/casa-inc-v-trump/

It's interesting that people howling about democracy are so dependent on using unelected judges/official to defy the will of the people. 

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It's interesting that people howling about democracy are so dependent on using unelected judges/official to defy the will of the people. 

It’s interesting that you seem to have forgotten the Republicans frequently resorted to using Federal judges to foil Democrat Presidential Executive Orders.

 

If you have evidence that the claimed ‘will of the people’ gives any President the authority to override the Constitution please post for our amusement.

[Will B Good]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

When was that? Examples please. 

1. 

Texas v. United States (DACA)

Judge: Andrew Hanen (appointed by George W. Bush)

Action: In 2021, Hanen blocked President Biden’s attempt to renew DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

Impact: Prevented new applicants from enrolling in the program, leaving hundreds of thousands in limbo.

Pattern: Hanen has been used repeatedly as a venue by conservative attorneys general due to his hostility toward Obama-era immigration actions.

2. 

FDA Mifepristone Ruling

Judge: Matthew Kacsmaryk (appointed by Trump)

Action: In 2023, he issued a nationwide ruling suspending the FDA’s decades-old approval of mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill.

Impact: Threw into question national access to medication abortion.

Controversy: Critics said the ruling was ideologically driven, not grounded in credible medical science or precedent.

3. 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Challenges

Multiple judges, including Reed O’Connor (appointed by George W. Bush)

Action: O’Connor ruled the ACA unconstitutional in 2018 after the individual mandate penalty was set to zero.

Impact: Threatened to dismantle Obamacare entirely until the Supreme Court reversed the trajectory.

Pattern: Conservative judges repeatedly entertained ACA challenges after the law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. 

Nationwide Injunctions Against Biden Immigration Policies

Judges: Again, many in Texas, including Kacsmaryk and Tipton (Trump appointee)

Actions: Blocked Biden’s attempts to reverse Trump-era immigration policies such as Title 42 expulsions, asylum limits, and enforcement priorities.

Venue Shopping: GOP state attorneys general often filed in districts with known conservative judges to ensure favorable rulings.

5. 

Student Loan Forgiveness Programs

Judge: Mark Pittman (Trump appointee)

Action: In 2022, he ruled that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional.

Result: Helped freeze the plan before SCOTUS struck it down.

Legal Critique: Many analysts noted a lack of direct harm to plaintiffs, suggesting questionable standing but favorable ideology.

6. 

COVID-19 Vaccine and Mask Mandate Challenges

GOP-appointed judges (especially Trump’s) issued multiple injunctions against Biden administration mask, vaccine, and testing mandates for:

Federal contractors

Health care workers

Private employers (OSHA mandate)

[novacova]

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

Relief must now be tailored to the named plaintiffs—protecting only those who brought the suit—unless broader coverage is needed to ensure their complete relief ......whatever that means??

SOCTUS ruled that Lower Courts cannot issue sweeping orders of nationwide injunctions and the orders must be restricted to the specific plaintiffs.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s interesting that you seem to have forgotten the Republicans frequently resorted to using Federal judges to foil Democrat Presidential Executive Orders.

Not nearly as often as the left.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

If you have evidence that the claimed ‘will of the people’ gives any President the authority to override the Constitution please post for our amusement.

How has President Trump tried to override the Constitution? Please post examples for our amusement.

 

Did he try to forgive student debt? 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

It's interesting that people howling about democracy are so dependent on using unelected judges/official to defy the will of the people. 

You seem not have paid attention to the SCOTUS ruling.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

1. 

Texas v. United States (DACA)

Judge: Andrew Hanen (appointed by George W. Bush)

Action: In 2021, Hanen blocked President Biden’s attempt to renew DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).

Impact: Prevented new applicants from enrolling in the program, leaving hundreds of thousands in limbo.

Pattern: Hanen has been used repeatedly as a venue by conservative attorneys general due to his hostility toward Obama-era immigration actions.

2. 

FDA Mifepristone Ruling

Judge: Matthew Kacsmaryk (appointed by Trump)

Action: In 2023, he issued a nationwide ruling suspending the FDA’s decades-old approval of mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill.

Impact: Threw into question national access to medication abortion.

Controversy: Critics said the ruling was ideologically driven, not grounded in credible medical science or precedent.

3. 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Challenges

Multiple judges, including Reed O’Connor (appointed by George W. Bush)

Action: O’Connor ruled the ACA unconstitutional in 2018 after the individual mandate penalty was set to zero.

Impact: Threatened to dismantle Obamacare entirely until the Supreme Court reversed the trajectory.

Pattern: Conservative judges repeatedly entertained ACA challenges after the law was upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. 

Nationwide Injunctions Against Biden Immigration Policies

Judges: Again, many in Texas, including Kacsmaryk and Tipton (Trump appointee)

Actions: Blocked Biden’s attempts to reverse Trump-era immigration policies such as Title 42 expulsions, asylum limits, and enforcement priorities.

Venue Shopping: GOP state attorneys general often filed in districts with known conservative judges to ensure favorable rulings.

5. 

Student Loan Forgiveness Programs

Judge: Mark Pittman (Trump appointee)

Action: In 2022, he ruled that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional.

Result: Helped freeze the plan before SCOTUS struck it down.

Legal Critique: Many analysts noted a lack of direct harm to plaintiffs, suggesting questionable standing but favorable ideology.

6. 

COVID-19 Vaccine and Mask Mandate Challenges

GOP-appointed judges (especially Trump’s) issued multiple injunctions against Biden administration mask, vaccine, and testing mandates for:

Federal contractors

Health care workers

Private employers (OSHA mandate)

What are these supposed to be example of? 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem not have paid attention to the SCOTUS ruling.

You seem not to have paid attention in civics nah nah nah 

[riclag]

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Yes indeed, looks like the Supreme Court have come up Trumps again!

I think much of the politics with the judiciary  coup is playing out behind closed doors! To me its obvious!

The lefts choices on the courts be it law clerks or judges are coaching on the sidelines, their arguments are the same! Have you ever seen a lower court judge ,Judge Murphy the original instigator,disrespect a 

Scotus decision before?
On the decision Barrett lambasted  
the left 

Amy Barrett :

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary”.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/27/justice-barrett-on-justice-jackson-in-trump-v-casa/

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

What are these supposed to be example of? 

 

[BangkokReady]

9 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Are you pro Iran getting a nuke?

 

It's amazing the people and policies these people will support, simply because they hate Trump.  

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Thanks!