Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

[Doc7505]

Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions​

WATCH: Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

pjmedia.com

1 Apr 2025 ~~ By Matt Margolis

By now, you know that I’m a big fan of Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to dismantle weak arguments with his signature Southern wit. On Monday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he was at the top of his game, systematically exposing the complete lack of legal authority for district judges to issue universal injunctions — a favorite tactic of the left to block President Trump’s agenda.
~Snip~

​

Kennedy’s questioning explained that universal injunctions lack any basis in statutory law, Supreme Court precedent, or historical common law and exposed their use as a judicial overreach that disproportionately targets President Trump’s policies.
The left's weaponization of universal injunctions against Trump continues unchecked, but Senator Kennedy just exposed their game.


Commentary:
Another great oral argument expressed. However these improperly imposed "Universal Injunctions remain active and Trump’s and our agenda remain hobbled.
Sen. Kennedy had the full agreement from Brett Shumate the entire time. Kennedy used a rhetorical way of questioning Shumate to make his point that the judiciary is a group of activist pseudo-judges dressed in black robes pretending to be real judges.
This is the core issue! Trump needs to get this to SCOTUS where it will be reviewed and stopped.
Is it time to show this judge, the judicial branch, and CJ Roberts, who endorsed Judge Boasberg... the respect they have shown the Executive branch of the Government, by ignoring them just as Obama and Biden did?

View at how this illegal used "Universal Injunction" weapon is used against President Trump!

• 20th Century: 0.3 per year
• Trump 45: 22 per year
• Trump 47: 154 per year.

 

[toobfreak]

I love John Kennedy. He has the superpower of nailing the issue every time. And he does it without being a smart shit.

 

[1srelluc]

Sen. Kennedy is a national treasure.

 

[berg80]

Kennedy’s questioning explained that universal injunctions lack any basis in statutory law,

Nope. He got the answer he wanted to get from a trump appointee who is either ignorant of the law or lying.

AI Overview
Yes, a federal district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction, meaning an order that prohibits the government from enforcing a policy or action across the entire country, though this practice has faced increasing scrutiny and debate.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• What is a nationwide injunction?
  A nationwide injunction, also known as a universal or nonparty injunction, is a court order that prohibits the government from enforcing a specific policy or action against anyone, regardless of whether they are a party to the lawsuit.
  
  
• Why are they controversial?
  Critics argue that nationwide injunctions allow a single district court judge to effectively make policy decisions that affect the entire nation, potentially undermining the separation of powers and the role of Congress.
  
  
• What are the arguments in favor?
  Proponents argue that nationwide injunctions are necessary to prevent the government from enforcing unconstitutional or unlawful policies, and that they provide a necessary check on executive power.
  
  
• How are they used?
  Nationwide injunctions have been used to block various executive actions, including those related to immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulations.
  
  
• What is the legal basis?
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue injunctions, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions found to be invalid, which some interpret as allowing nationwide injunctions in certain cases.

 

[kyzr]

Nope. He got the answer he wanted to get from a trump appointee who is either ignorant of the law or lying.

AI Overview
Yes, a federal district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction, meaning an order that prohibits the government from enforcing a policy or action across the entire country, though this practice has faced increasing scrutiny and debate.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• What is a nationwide injunction?
  A nationwide injunction, also known as a universal or nonparty injunction, is a court order that prohibits the government from enforcing a specific policy or action against anyone, regardless of whether they are a party to the lawsuit.
  
  
• Why are they controversial?
  Critics argue that nationwide injunctions allow a single district court judge to effectively make policy decisions that affect the entire nation, potentially undermining the separation of powers and the role of Congress.
  
  
• What are the arguments in favor?
  Proponents argue that nationwide injunctions are necessary to prevent the government from enforcing unconstitutional or unlawful policies, and that they provide a necessary check on executive power.
  
  
• How are they used?
  Nationwide injunctions have been used to block various executive actions, including those related to immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulations.
  
  
• What is the legal basis?
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue injunctions, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions found to be invalid, which some interpret as allowing nationwide injunctions in certain cases.

Nope. For a "universal injunction" to happen, the plaintiff would need to file a "class action" lawsuit.

 

[berg80]

Nope. For a "universal injunction" to happen, the plaintiff would need to file a "class action" lawsuit.

You must have missed this.

• What is the legal basis?
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue injunctions, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions found to be invalid, which some interpret as allowing nationwide injunctions in certain cases.

BTW, Kennedy is a hack.

 

[Delldude]

which some interpret

There you go.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. For a "universal injunction" to happen, the plaintiff would need to file a "class action" lawsuit.

They did.

Judge Boseman granted the class action status on March 15th for the TRO.

WW
.
.
.

.
.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/

 

[Care4all]

It's only temporary, until the suit works its way through the courts. If the Executive wins, then the temporary injunction ends.

 

[berg80]

Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions​

WATCH: Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

pjmedia.com

1 Apr 2025 ~~ By Matt Margolis

By now, you know that I’m a big fan of Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to dismantle weak arguments with his signature Southern wit. On Monday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he was at the top of his game, systematically exposing the complete lack of legal authority for district judges to issue universal injunctions — a favorite tactic of the left to block President Trump’s agenda.
~Snip~

​

Kennedy’s questioning explained that universal injunctions lack any basis in statutory law, Supreme Court precedent, or historical common law and exposed their use as a judicial overreach that disproportionately targets President Trump’s policies.
The left's weaponization of universal injunctions against Trump continues unchecked, but Senator Kennedy just exposed their game.


Commentary:
Another great oral argument expressed. However these improperly imposed "Universal Injunctions remain active and Trump’s and our agenda remain hobbled.
Sen. Kennedy had the full agreement from Brett Shumate the entire time. Kennedy used a rhetorical way of questioning Shumate to make his point that the judiciary is a group of activist pseudo-judges dressed in black robes pretending to be real judges.
This is the core issue! Trump needs to get this to SCOTUS where it will be reviewed and stopped.
Is it time to show this judge, the judicial branch, and CJ Roberts, who endorsed Judge Boasberg... the respect they have shown the Executive branch of the Government, by ignoring them just as Obama and Biden did?

View at how this illegal used "Universal Injunction" weapon is used against President Trump!

• 20th Century: 0.3 per year
• Trump 45: 22 per year
• Trump 47: 154 per year.

Thanks for providing another example of how misinformation is spread to the gullible by right wing media.

 

[gipper]

Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions​

WATCH: Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

pjmedia.com

1 Apr 2025 ~~ By Matt Margolis

By now, you know that I’m a big fan of Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to dismantle weak arguments with his signature Southern wit. On Monday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he was at the top of his game, systematically exposing the complete lack of legal authority for district judges to issue universal injunctions — a favorite tactic of the left to block President Trump’s agenda.
~Snip~

​

Kennedy’s questioning explained that universal injunctions lack any basis in statutory law, Supreme Court precedent, or historical common law and exposed their use as a judicial overreach that disproportionately targets President Trump’s policies.
The left's weaponization of universal injunctions against Trump continues unchecked, but Senator Kennedy just exposed their game.


Commentary:
Another great oral argument expressed. However these improperly imposed "Universal Injunctions remain active and Trump’s and our agenda remain hobbled.
Sen. Kennedy had the full agreement from Brett Shumate the entire time. Kennedy used a rhetorical way of questioning Shumate to make his point that the judiciary is a group of activist pseudo-judges dressed in black robes pretending to be real judges.
This is the core issue! Trump needs to get this to SCOTUS where it will be reviewed and stopped.
Is it time to show this judge, the judicial branch, and CJ Roberts, who endorsed Judge Boasberg... the respect they have shown the Executive branch of the Government, by ignoring them just as Obama and Biden did?

View at how this illegal used "Universal Injunction" weapon is used against President Trump!

• 20th Century: 0.3 per year
• Trump 45: 22 per year
• Trump 47: 154 per year.

Yet another traitor for Israel.

 

[Nostra]

Nope. He got the answer he wanted to get from a trump appointee who is either ignorant of the law or lying.

AI Overview
Yes, a federal district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction, meaning an order that prohibits the government from enforcing a policy or action across the entire country, though this practice has faced increasing scrutiny and debate.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• What is a nationwide injunction?
  A nationwide injunction, also known as a universal or nonparty injunction, is a court order that prohibits the government from enforcing a specific policy or action against anyone, regardless of whether they are a party to the lawsuit.
  
  
• Why are they controversial?
  Critics argue that nationwide injunctions allow a single district court judge to effectively make policy decisions that affect the entire nation, potentially undermining the separation of powers and the role of Congress.
  
  
• What are the arguments in favor?
  Proponents argue that nationwide injunctions are necessary to prevent the government from enforcing unconstitutional or unlawful policies, and that they provide a necessary check on executive power.
  
  
• How are they used?
  Nationwide injunctions have been used to block various executive actions, including those related to immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulations.
  
  
• What is the legal basis?
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue injunctions, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions found to be invalid, which some interpret as allowing nationwide injunctions in certain cases.

A civil rule is not a statute, moron.

“Some interpret”.

So nothing based on any statute, as Kennedy exposed. No Supreme Court ruling allowing nationwide injunctions.

So all you have have is someone interpreting an agency rule to mean a district judge has the STATUTORY power that doesn’t exist.

 

[Nostra]

You must have missed this.

• What is the legal basis?
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue injunctions, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes courts to "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions found to be invalid, which some interpret as allowing nationwide injunctions in certain cases.

BTW, Kennedy is a hack.

A federal agency rule is not a law, stupid.

 

[Lesh]

A federal agency rule is not a law, stupid.

It’s a RULING… also known as a court order.

Stupid

 

[Nostra]

It’s a RULING… also known as a court order.

Stupid

No stupid, agencies write their own rules. They don’t get court orders for them.

 

[Nostra]

It’s a RULING… also known as a court order.

Stupid

Also, any court order has to be based on a statute. There is no statute allowing a court to impose a nationwide injunction unless you file a class action lawsuit.

 

[Lesh]

Also, any court order has to be based on a statute. There is no statute allowing a court to impose a nationwide injunction unless you file a class action lawsuit.

A. I don’t know that that’s true

B. I don’t know that that hasn’t happened.

Can you show your work to the class?

 

[Lesh]

No stupid, agencies write their own rules. They don’t get court orders for them.

I was talking about court rulings… the topic of the thread

 

[Nostra]

A. I don’t know that that’s true

B. I don’t know that that hasn’t happened.

Can you show your work to the class?

Provide the statute.

 

[Nostra]

I was talking about court rulings… the topic of the thread

This ruling is not based on a statute, as required.

The courts don’t get to write laws, Simp.