That’s not what the ruling said, first of all. The ruling said that the 28 states who DID NOT sue won’t be included in the injunctions that are being put in place, meaning these asshats took issue with the lower court issuing a nationwide injunction. Any individuals or groups that sue will still be included in the injunction set to go into effect in 30 days.
Stupid, fuck yes. Overstepping, yup. It is not a ban on lower courts issuing injunctions full stop as you’ve just said.
Yeah technically but still makes it a lot harder, more expensive, and longer; especially for the unlucky ones in red states who now have unequal access to justice. Giving them plenty of time to do whatever the f they want. Already bumrushing people at breakneck speed on the streets and shipping them off to random countries what do you reckon they’ll manage in their remaining 3.5+ years.
The ruling only applies to the nationwide injunction that was issued on this order. As I said in my other comment, any individuals can sign onto this simply by asking. There will be a massive flood of options to do this showing up in Monday, I guarantee, so I’m not worried about that.
It wasn’t a ruling on nationwide injunctions in general, it wasn’t a legal ruling saying that federal judges cannot do this in the future, and it wasn’t an exclusion of anybody from signing on to this.
As far as the next few years…honestly, we just need to make it to midterms. That’s what I’m focused on and worried about. The GOP is already eating themselves alive and fracturing in a million pieces just like his first term, and at record speed. Yeah, shit feels kind of bleak, but people need to think more strategically and manage out how we GET to the midterms without shit getting worse or escalating. That’s the important bit.
Those articles say it does apply to nationwide injunctions in general so Wdym?
The court decided that nationwide injunctions, or court orders that prevent the government from enforcing a specific law or policy, are unconstitutional.
You’re assuming the midterms will save you but that assumes he won the election fairly. Which he didn’t based on the suppression tactics he down alone; before you get to the dodgy voting patterns and gerrymandering.
Supreme Court opinions are only scoped to the argument brought to the court. This one was about many states using over the Birthright Citizenship.
They did not make any sort of ruling about ALL federal court injunctions. That would cripple their own court and the federal court system with immediate filings.
You can go and find the ruling text and the dissent text. The reason why the news outlets are reporting other headlines is because this weakens the ability of lower courts to do nationwide injunctions without a specific scope. There is no specific text in the ruling that “bans” nationwide injunctions by lower courts.
By the way, the scope of this is important, but they of course had no ruling on the 14th amendment, because they fucking can’t. It’s the constitution.
Literally anyone can walk into court and say “Unconstitutional” and have this entire order upended, because the Supreme Court has to take other rulings into account.
Let me go one step further by saying this was on the Shadow Docket, and these are temporary stays of other rulings. This is not codified as law, or anything of the sort. Whatever damage they’ve done here can easily be reversed without the court’s involvement.
The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.
It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions
Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.
Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.
I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.
Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.
The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.
That’s not what the ruling said, first of all. The ruling said that the 28 states who DID NOT sue won’t be included in the injunctions that are being put in place, meaning these asshats took issue with the lower court issuing a nationwide injunction. Any individuals or groups that sue will still be included in the injunction set to go into effect in 30 days.
Stupid, fuck yes. Overstepping, yup. It is not a ban on lower courts issuing injunctions full stop as you’ve just said.
Yeah technically but still makes it a lot harder, more expensive, and longer; especially for the unlucky ones in red states who now have unequal access to justice. Giving them plenty of time to do whatever the f they want. Already bumrushing people at breakneck speed on the streets and shipping them off to random countries what do you reckon they’ll manage in their remaining 3.5+ years.
The ruling only applies to the nationwide injunction that was issued on this order. As I said in my other comment, any individuals can sign onto this simply by asking. There will be a massive flood of options to do this showing up in Monday, I guarantee, so I’m not worried about that.
It wasn’t a ruling on nationwide injunctions in general, it wasn’t a legal ruling saying that federal judges cannot do this in the future, and it wasn’t an exclusion of anybody from signing on to this.
As far as the next few years…honestly, we just need to make it to midterms. That’s what I’m focused on and worried about. The GOP is already eating themselves alive and fracturing in a million pieces just like his first term, and at record speed. Yeah, shit feels kind of bleak, but people need to think more strategically and manage out how we GET to the midterms without shit getting worse or escalating. That’s the important bit.
Edit: here’s a very smart and measured legal analyst that spells it out succinctly: https://www.rawstory.com/msnbc-2672488166/
Those articles say it does apply to nationwide injunctions in general so Wdym?
You’re assuming the midterms will save you but that assumes he won the election fairly. Which he didn’t based on the suppression tactics he down alone; before you get to the dodgy voting patterns and gerrymandering.
It’s about this specific junction. Not all.
Supreme Court opinions are only scoped to the argument brought to the court. This one was about many states using over the Birthright Citizenship.
They did not make any sort of ruling about ALL federal court injunctions. That would cripple their own court and the federal court system with immediate filings.
It affects all nationwide injunctions not just this one.
This ruling changes when and how lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions for any future case.
Courts can still block federal policies - but now they must limit injunctions to the actual plaintiffs or a certified class.
Again, and as I said before, it does not do that, because that wasn’t the case being argued. It affects this one scope.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
You can go and find the ruling text and the dissent text. The reason why the news outlets are reporting other headlines is because this weakens the ability of lower courts to do nationwide injunctions without a specific scope. There is no specific text in the ruling that “bans” nationwide injunctions by lower courts.
By the way, the scope of this is important, but they of course had no ruling on the 14th amendment, because they fucking can’t. It’s the constitution.
Literally anyone can walk into court and say “Unconstitutional” and have this entire order upended, because the Supreme Court has to take other rulings into account.
Let me go one step further by saying this was on the Shadow Docket, and these are temporary stays of other rulings. This is not codified as law, or anything of the sort. Whatever damage they’ve done here can easily be reversed without the court’s involvement.
The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.
It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.
That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions
Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.
Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.
It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.
Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.
The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.
Don’t post dumbass AI takes for duck’s sake. This is insane.