Re: Nationwide injunctions

On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 20:53:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
>
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
>
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
>
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
>
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
>
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
>
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
>
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

The whole point of the Court's ruling was to note that there simply is
no power to make nation-wide rulings.  If you can find it the
Constitution, please quote it for us.  Additionally, who cares if the
case if filed in DC?  That's no more relevant than a case filed in
Ohio.  If you don't like the laws, you can contact Congress which is
what the remedy is.  You don't use selected king judges to ignore the
Supreme Court.