Article

2025-06-27 -Land of the Free

Big Supreme Court Win For President Trump: No More Universal Preliminary Injunctions

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2025-06-27 14:47|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [155 views ] Top

#1 There is hope.

Posted by Super Hose 2025-06-27 15:00|| 2025-06-27 15:00|| Front Page Top

#2 Sounds like Judge Whoopi is having a no good day.

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-06-27 15:42|| 2025-06-27 15:42|| Front Page Top

, the court determined that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."

It is decades past time when Congress awakes from its stupor and actually exercises its authority to regulate federal courts. This fact consistently gets zero or nearly zero mention in media comments or online legal oriented blogs. Shh. Be sure not to discuss this with anyone. Above all, don't mention it to the Congress critters about to run for relection 3 Nov 2026.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2025-06-27 16:43|| 2025-06-27 16:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Amy Coney Barrett Utterly Humiliated Ketanji Brown Jackson:

Barrett, writing for the majority, didn’t just settle for a routine legal reasoning. She delivered a withering rebuke to Jackson’s dissent, slicing straight through the hollow rhetoric and exposing her radical rewrite of two centuries of constitutional law for what it was: ideological fantasy posing as legal reasoning. She didn’t hesitate, didn’t hedge, and delivered the blow with unflinching clarity:

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.

Ouch.

As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned.

Ooooh!

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. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

Bam!

JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.”

Brutal, isn't it?

Barrett exposed Jackson’s dissent as nothing more than a blatant call for judicial supremacy, an idea the Framers explicitly rejected. She reminded the court and the country that the answer to executive overreach isn’t for judges to crown themselves kings. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett explained, "But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so."

Posted by trailing wife 2025-06-27 17:21|| 2025-06-27 17:21|| Front Page Top

#5 "Did you read that smackdown that woman wrote?"
"What is a woman?"

Posted by Frank G 2025-06-27 19:40|| 2025-06-27 19:40|| Front Page Top

#6 ^ Snark of the Day

Posted by Matt 2025-06-27 20:04|| 2025-06-27 20:04|| Front Page Top

#7 Too late ;-)

Posted by Frank G 2025-06-27 20:14|| 2025-06-27 20:14|| Front Page Top

#8 "Black What is a Girl Magic!"

Posted by swksvolFF 2025-06-27 20:24|| 2025-06-27 20:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Amy Coney Barrett tears into liberal fellow Supreme Court justice over birthright citizenship

Posted by Skidmark 2025-06-27 20:40|| 2025-06-27 20:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Senator Kennedy on universal injunctions

“Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up the concept of universal injunctions. If you disagree with a President or Congress, fill out a hurt feelings report—but you can’t put their actions on hold because you don’t like them.”

Posted by Matt 2025-06-27 21:05|| 2025-06-27 21:05|| Front Page Top

#11 One of the things Trump is doing is forcing the courts to look at the constitution with regard to issue long used as political theater. Like Trump or not, like the SC outcomes or not, the constitution will be stronger because of this.

Posted by 49 Pan 2025-06-27 22:30|| 2025-06-27 22:30|| Front Page Top

22:30 49 Pan
22:09 badanov
21:09 newc
21:05 Matt
21:04 newc
20:43 Skidmark
20:40 Skidmark
20:39 swksvolFF
20:26 swksvolFF
20:24 swksvolFF
20:14 Frank G
20:09 Skidmark
20:08 Skidmark
20:04 Matt
20:02 Skidmark
20:00 Skidmark
19:52 Skidmark
19:51 Skidmark
19:50 Skidmark
19:44 Skidmark
19:40 Frank G
18:58 swksvolFF
18:08 SteveS
18:02 NN2N1
Merry-Go-Blog