Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

[justoffal]

Kinda takes me back somewhere between the Beverly hillbillies and Greenacres.

He's actually sneakily witty and carries a sledgehammer behind his back....

 

[Delldude]

He's actually sneakily witty and carries a sledgehammer behind his back....

I'd say he's probably a kickass lawyer.

 

[justoffal]

I'd say he's probably a kickass lawyer.

Definitely

 

[Delldude]

Here's an article on Barrett's opinion:

Barrett suggested that Jackson was centuries behind on her reading.​

The court ruled 6-3 in each of these cases, and in all three, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the dissenting minority.
_________________

Not only did Jackson not get her way, her apparent ignorance and judicial freewheeling was exposed for all to see in CASA, where she noted in a dissenting opinion that the majority's decision not only "diverges from first principles" but is "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."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who delivered the opinion of the court in CASA, noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent focused on "conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity." Jackson, on the other hand,

chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a 'mind-numbingly technical query' ... she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.

Barrett noted that her untethered colleague apparently believes both that "the fundamental role of courts is to 'order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law — full stop,'" and that "if courts lack the power to 'require the Executive to adhere to law universally' ... courts will leave a 'gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound.'"
_______________
The former Notre Dame Law School professor tried to make sense out of Jackson's position, though admitted that it was "difficult to pin down."
_______________
"In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment," wrote Barrett. "Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere."

Barrett proceeded to insinuate that former President Joe Biden's DEI appointee was ignorant of the relevant American legal history and precedent and may have skipped analysis of relevant readings because they involved "boring 'legalese.'"
"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," wrote Barrett.

Although she would not dwell on Jackson's understanding, Barrett nevertheless pointed out that the liberal justice "decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her apparent ignorance of American law | Blaze Media

Barrett suggested that Jackson was centuries behind on her reading.

www.theblaze.com

 

[Rigby5]

Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions​

WATCH: Sen. John Kennedy Destroys Nationwide Injunctions

By now, you know that I’m a big fan of Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to disman

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.

That is crazy.
Judges know law a million times better than legislators.
When one judge rules that a law is illegal, that means anyone else trying to prosecute that law is a deliberate criminal.
Kennedy should be impeached, since he clearly does not understand at all the whole point of having a judiciary.

He also is wrong historically in that universal injunctions have always been the norm.
It just comes up more with Trump because he deliberately violates the constitution much more than any president ever has.

{...
For the first 175 years of the republic, courts typically did not enjoin defendants with respect to nonparties, especially if that defendant was the federal government. Some scholars have estimated that American federal courts issued a dozen nationwide injunctions during this time, while others have estimated that American federal courts issued zero nationwide injunctions during this time.

In the nineteenth century, courts occasionally enjoined a municipality or county from enforcing a challenged tax or ordinance against nonparties. This was considered an extension of the "bill of peace" because it resolved a common claim by a small and cohesive group. The Supreme Court in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) said this type of suit was justified by the theory that citizens of a county or municipality have a relationship comparable to that of shareholders to a corporation.

One explanation for the lack of nationwide injunctions is that the federal government itself waived its sovereign immunity from suit in 1976, while another is that venue and personal jurisdiction rules for a long time restricted litigants from suing cabinet officers outside of Washington, D.C., when seeking injunctions.

Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions or closely related remedies.

• Scott v. Donald (1897) — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution. In addition to damages, Donald asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute against anyone. Despite agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that "we are unable to wholly approve the decree entered in this case." The Court explained that "there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous, but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction."
• Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan (1913) — In 1913, the Supreme Court temporarily granted an order "restraining the defendants . . . from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of said statute, and particularly restraining them from denying to appellant and other newspaper publishers the privileges of the mail. . . ." Professor Mila Sohoni interpreted the Lewis Publishing order as an "injunction barring the enforcement of the new federal law against anyone until the merits had been decided." Professor Samuel Bray interpreted it as a matter of estoppel because the government had already promised to the court it would not enforce the provision against anyone during litigation.
• Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) — Harriet Frothingham sued the federal government for spending money under the Maternity Act, which she argued exceeded the powers of the federal government. She asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the government from carrying out the provisions of this act with regard to her and nonparties alike. The Supreme Court held against her unanimously, reasoning that a Court could not provide such relief without "assum[ing] a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess."

...}
Nationwide injunction - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

Wrong.
The courts most definitely get to nullify illegal laws or illegal applications of law.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

That is the exact opposite of reality.
And injunction is stating the statute is defective, so can never be "based on a statute".
An injunction is the nullification of a statute.
Like if it were ruled by a judge that DEA was violating basic rights by enforcing drug laws, that would be a perfectly valid universal injunction.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Never.
The whole point of the judiciary is to provide overview and judicial review of basic principles under which statutes are written and used.
So of course the basic principles are vastly above simply statutes, and you NEVER use statutes in order to determine if other statutes or enforcement of a particular statute is legal or not.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

The courts always get to define what the basic principles of law are, and their whole existence is to limit when legislators or executive exceed or violate basic principles.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

Yes we get it, Kennedy is constitutionally illiterate.

Nationwide injunctions have been legal president since the 19th century and Supreme Court after Supreme court has ruled, they are a valid judicial method for protection individual rights from presidential or congressional assault.

 

[struth]

That is the exact opposite of reality.
And injunction is stating the statute is defective, so can never be "based on a statute".
An injunction is the nullification of a statute.
Like if it were ruled by a judge that DEA was violating basic rights by enforcing drug laws, that would be a perfectly valid universal injunction.

An injunction isn’t a nullification of a statute. You have no clue what an injunction is.

 

[struth]

Yes we get it, Kennedy is constitutionally illiterate.

Nationwide injunctions have been legal president since the 19th century and Supreme Court after Supreme court has ruled, they are a valid judicial method for protection individual rights from presidential or congressional assault.

The issue isn’t if the Supreme Court can issue one

You clueless dembots

 

[struth]

Never.
The whole point of the judiciary is to provide overview and judicial review of basic principles under which statutes are written and used.
So of course the basic principles are vastly above simply statutes, and you NEVER use statutes in order to determine if other statutes or enforcement of a particular statute is legal or not.

An injunction isn’t judicial review

 

[scruffy]

That is crazy.
Judges know law a million times better than legislators.

Not this one.

This one is a moron.

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The issue isn’t if the Supreme Court can issue one

You clueless dembots

Do try to keep up, the Supreme Court just ruled district courts can not longer hand down national injuctions as power they have had for over 150 years, one that sustains equal application of law nationally.

Now law will be a lottery from district to district.

 

[struth]

Do try to keep up, the Supreme Court just ruled district courts can not longer hand down national injuctions as power they have had for over 150 years, one that sustains equal application of law nationally.

Now law will be a lottery from district to district.

Please try and keep up… the scotus said it’s a power they never had in cases that were class actions

It’s a challenge never brought to the scotus when used in the past, but the demafasict activist judges decided to issue more against Trump then in the entire history of our country. So he rightful fought and got the demafacist unconstitutional attack on the rule of law brought to order

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No that is not

Please try and keep up… the scotus said it’s a power they never had in cases that were class actions

It’s a challenge never brought to the scotus when used in the past, but the demafasict activist judges decided to issue more against Trump then in the entire history of our country. So he rightful fought and got the demafacist unconstitutional attack on the rule of law brought to ord

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

No that is not

The Supreme Court ruled that national injuctive relief is no longer constitutional despite it being constitutional for over 150 years and insuring equal application of law in the entire USA.

That is what they ruled.

 

[justoffal]

That is crazy.
Judges know law a million times better than legislators.
When one judge rules that a law is illegal, that means anyone else trying to prosecute that law is a deliberate criminal.
Kennedy should be impeached, since he clearly does not understand at all the whole point of having a judiciary.

He also is wrong historically in that universal injunctions have always been the norm.
It just comes up more with Trump because he deliberately violates the constitution much more than any president ever has.

{...
For the first 175 years of the republic, courts typically did not enjoin defendants with respect to nonparties, especially if that defendant was the federal government. Some scholars have estimated that American federal courts issued a dozen nationwide injunctions during this time, while others have estimated that American federal courts issued zero nationwide injunctions during this time.

In the nineteenth century, courts occasionally enjoined a municipality or county from enforcing a challenged tax or ordinance against nonparties. This was considered an extension of the "bill of peace" because it resolved a common claim by a small and cohesive group. The Supreme Court in Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) said this type of suit was justified by the theory that citizens of a county or municipality have a relationship comparable to that of shareholders to a corporation.

One explanation for the lack of nationwide injunctions is that the federal government itself waived its sovereign immunity from suit in 1976, while another is that venue and personal jurisdiction rules for a long time restricted litigants from suing cabinet officers outside of Washington, D.C., when seeking injunctions.

Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions or closely related remedies.

• Scott v. Donald (1897) — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution. In addition to damages, Donald asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute against anyone. Despite agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that "we are unable to wholly approve the decree entered in this case." The Court explained that "there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous, but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction."
• Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan (1913) — In 1913, the Supreme Court temporarily granted an order "restraining the defendants . . . from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of said statute, and particularly restraining them from denying to appellant and other newspaper publishers the privileges of the mail. . . ." Professor Mila Sohoni interpreted the Lewis Publishing order as an "injunction barring the enforcement of the new federal law against anyone until the merits had been decided." Professor Samuel Bray interpreted it as a matter of estoppel because the government had already promised to the court it would not enforce the provision against anyone during litigation.
• Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) — Harriet Frothingham sued the federal government for spending money under the Maternity Act, which she argued exceeded the powers of the federal government. She asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the government from carrying out the provisions of this act with regard to her and nonparties alike. The Supreme Court held against her unanimously, reasoning that a Court could not provide such relief without "assum[ing] a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess."

...}
Nationwide injunction - Wikipedia

It's all pretty simple simply eliminate the district lines. This is more about common sense than it is about legal theory. Why have districts if every district is all the districts? There's nothing difficult about this concept it's just common sense