"If you really want to restore faith in the judiciary, stop lifting injunctions against this administration without explanation."
September 8, 2025 at 5:03 PM
"If you really want to restore faith in the judiciary, stop lifting injunctions against this administration without explanation."
wait, have we considered stunlocking the administration by just having appellate court judges repeatedly mooting their injunctions with new injunctions
BREAKING: A federal judge in Boston has again blocked key parts of the U.S. Postal Service plan for President Trump’s attempt to limit mail voting for the midterms. The judge says her new ruling dissolves her earlier ruling, which the Trump administration just asked Supreme Court to review
Memorandum & ORDER – #285 in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass., 1:26-cv-11549) – CourtListener.com
Judge Indira Talwani: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Associated Cases: 1:26-cv-11549-IT, 1:26-cv-13917-IT (MAP) (Entered: 09/04/2026)
www.courtlistener.com
September 4, 2026 at 11:33 PM
wait, have we considered stunlocking the administration by just having appellate court judges repeatedly mooting their injunctions with new injunctions
Republicans are considering legislation to limit the scope of federal injunctions, potentially curbing the judiciary’s power. These injunctions are typically issued when judges believe a law or executive action may be unconstitutional.
March 25, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Republicans are considering legislation to limit the scope of federal injunctions, potentially curbing the judiciary’s power. These injunctions are typically issued when judges believe a law or executive action may be unconstitutional.
Good. We need injunctions.
February 5, 2025 at 10:11 PM
Good. We need injunctions.
Justice Jackson did not come to play today (Birthright citizenship/nationwide injunctions)
June 27, 2025 at 10:08 PM
Justice Jackson did not come to play today (Birthright citizenship/nationwide injunctions)
Rep. Jayapal: "If you try to eliminate birthright citizenship, jail people for free speech, slash funding, use Cold War-era regulations to do mass deportations, then yeah. You're going to get nationwide injunctions. So maybe if you don't like the injunctions, stop doing the illegal stuff."
April 1, 2025 at 5:13 PM
Rep. Jayapal: "If you try to eliminate birthright citizenship, jail people for free speech, slash funding, use Cold War-era regulations to do mass deportations, then yeah. You're going to get nationwide injunctions. So maybe if you don't like the injunctions, stop doing the illegal stuff."
SCOTUS: nationwide injunctions are still fine with class action lawsuits
ACLU: ✍️ noted
😉
ACLU: ✍️ noted
😉
* US JUDGE BLOCKS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION
@reuters.com
@reuters.com
July 10, 2025 at 4:43 PM
SCOTUS: nationwide injunctions are still fine with class action lawsuits
ACLU: ✍️ noted
😉
ACLU: ✍️ noted
😉
I want to reiterate that countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump's second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard.
June 27, 2025 at 2:11 PM
I want to reiterate that countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump's second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard.
The second suit, which names 30 providers, organizations, and pharmacies, seeks injunctions, damages—and threatens RICO claims down the line.
www.ag.state.la.us
September 30, 2026 at 7:33 PM
The second suit, which names 30 providers, organizations, and pharmacies, seeks injunctions, damages—and threatens RICO claims down the line.
It has been a good week for injunctions against Trump's unlawfulness.
May 29, 2026 at 7:02 PM
It has been a good week for injunctions against Trump's unlawfulness.
NOTE: Judge Lamberth extended both of his prison-related preliminary injunctions in challenges to Trump admin trans inmate policies. (Such injunctions have a 90-day limit.)
The injunctions block:
* Trump policy on gender-affirming care
* BOP from moving the trans women who are in women's prisons
The injunctions block:
* Trump policy on gender-affirming care
* BOP from moving the trans women who are in women's prisons
August 26, 2026 at 11:05 PM
NOTE: Judge Lamberth extended both of his prison-related preliminary injunctions in challenges to Trump admin trans inmate policies. (Such injunctions have a 90-day limit.)
The injunctions block:
* Trump policy on gender-affirming care
* BOP from moving the trans women who are in women's prisons
The injunctions block:
* Trump policy on gender-affirming care
* BOP from moving the trans women who are in women's prisons
Just pointing out that conservative judges on this court liked nationwide injunctions just fine when those injunctions furthered right-wing ideology.
June 27, 2025 at 2:19 PM
Just pointing out that conservative judges on this court liked nationwide injunctions just fine when those injunctions furthered right-wing ideology.
Fantastic news about the Montana zoning reform injunctions:
September 4, 2024 at 1:11 AM
Fantastic news about the Montana zoning reform injunctions:
And that’s what this is about. We’re talking about injunctions. Not the merits. Injunctions. We’re talking about injunctions.
These are the birthright citizenship cases, which present honestly the single best argument for nationwide injunctions I can think of; that it would be absolutely insane to have a system where a person’s US citizenship could change when traveling from one state to another.
JUST IN: #SCOTUS agrees to Trump administration request to delve into power of district court judges to grant nationwide injunctions. Unusual oral arguments set May 15, about 2 weeks after args were to end for term. Doc: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court... Earlier: www.politico.com/news/2025/03...
April 17, 2025 at 8:12 PM
And that’s what this is about. We’re talking about injunctions. Not the merits. Injunctions. We’re talking about injunctions.
🚨By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority and rolls back the injunctions protecting birthright citizenship from Trump's attack. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
June 27, 2025 at 2:02 PM
🚨By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority and rolls back the injunctions protecting birthright citizenship from Trump's attack. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
Of course, qualitatively, the lower-court injunctions in the Biden cases were almost entirely horseshit, while the injunctions in the Trump cases are almost entirely slam dunks
Making this even worse than the numbers would indicate
Making this even worse than the numbers would indicate
The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has cast very different shadows depending on which party holds the White House.
When lower courts blocked Trump admin policies, SCOTUS intervened on an emergency basis to lift those orders in 77% of cases.
For the Biden administration, that number was 0%.
When lower courts blocked Trump admin policies, SCOTUS intervened on an emergency basis to lift those orders in 77% of cases.
For the Biden administration, that number was 0%.
July 9, 2025 at 6:32 PM
Of course, qualitatively, the lower-court injunctions in the Biden cases were almost entirely horseshit, while the injunctions in the Trump cases are almost entirely slam dunks
Making this even worse than the numbers would indicate
Making this even worse than the numbers would indicate
The S Ct today did NOT deny anyone birthright citizenship; it addressed "nationwide injunctions," limiting courts from issuing them. They can issue injunctions within their district. Remember: this will prevent conservative judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in mifepristone and other cases.
June 27, 2025 at 3:48 PM
The S Ct today did NOT deny anyone birthright citizenship; it addressed "nationwide injunctions," limiting courts from issuing them. They can issue injunctions within their district. Remember: this will prevent conservative judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in mifepristone and other cases.
Stop breaking the law and you won’t get so many injunctions.
March 24, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Stop breaking the law and you won’t get so many injunctions.
to make a finer point: if the issue of nationwide injunctions reached the Court maybe half a dozen times in a few years, and they let them stand every time but one, is the rule *really* that nationwide injunctions are disfavored?
law professors have been unable to understand why people are actually concerned about this case. it’s not about nationwide injunctions per se, it’s about a court that waited until the issue hurt the GOP, and then intervened on behalf of one of the most egregious constitutional violations we’ve seen
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called yesterday's decision about nationwide injunctions "an existential threat to the rule of law."
She's mistaken.
My latest in @theatlantic.com: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
She's mistaken.
My latest in @theatlantic.com: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
June 28, 2025 at 4:08 PM
to make a finer point: if the issue of nationwide injunctions reached the Court maybe half a dozen times in a few years, and they let them stand every time but one, is the rule *really* that nationwide injunctions are disfavored?
So universal injunctions that bound an actual party just against nonparties too were ultra vires, but circuitwide injunctions that functionally bind the nonparties are fine?
July 23, 2026 at 11:56 AM
So universal injunctions that bound an actual party just against nonparties too were ultra vires, but circuitwide injunctions that functionally bind the nonparties are fine?
sorry scotus, president aoc must act immediately to address this vital issue of national security no time for any injunctions or such
September 23, 2026 at 1:19 PM
sorry scotus, president aoc must act immediately to address this vital issue of national security no time for any injunctions or such
I’m curious why you think the six justices in the CASA majority allowed multiple universal injunctions against the Biden administration to stand, then abolished universal injunctions within six months of Trump’s return to office
June 28, 2025 at 1:58 PM
I’m curious why you think the six justices in the CASA majority allowed multiple universal injunctions against the Biden administration to stand, then abolished universal injunctions within six months of Trump’s return to office
Pam Bondi just claimed that nationwide injunctions gave relief to "everyone in the world."
Huge if true.
Huge if true.
June 27, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Pam Bondi just claimed that nationwide injunctions gave relief to "everyone in the world."
Huge if true.
Huge if true.
Supreme Court abolishing national injunctions sure seems well timed
UPDATED: New additions to our running list of judges who have ruled on ICE's mandatory detention policy:
Against ICE: Michael Barrett, Julia Munley, Paul Huck, Joseph Goodwin
For ICE: Douglas Cole
Overall
386 against ICE - 32 for ICE
www.politico.com/news/2026/02...
Against ICE: Michael Barrett, Julia Munley, Paul Huck, Joseph Goodwin
For ICE: Douglas Cole
Overall
386 against ICE - 32 for ICE
www.politico.com/news/2026/02...
February 23, 2026 at 9:11 PM
Supreme Court abolishing national injunctions sure seems well timed
67% of the injunctions against Trump are because Trump is a fucking criminal!!
March 19, 2025 at 10:50 PM
67% of the injunctions against Trump are because Trump is a fucking criminal!!