No. of Recommendations: 3
The Supremes Ruled 6-3 that district judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions on policy. The upshot of the ruling is that
-Any injunctions only cover the parties before the court
-Any injunctions only cover the district the court is in
This is correct. There have been a number of Second Amendment cases that would easily affect every single America but the rulings were always limited to the case participants and only in the district the ruling was made in...this decision brings these immigration and whatever other Hawaii judge things into line with the powers the judiciary is supposed to have.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884... The Government
argues that the District Courts lacked equitable authority to impose
universal relief and has filed three nearly identical emergency appli
cations seeking partial stays to limit the preliminary injunctions to the
plaintiffs in each case. The applications do not raise—and thus the
Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order vi
olates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue
the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal
courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.The government's lawyers were very clever here.
Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that
Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Govern
ment’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below,
but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary
to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4
26. The key phrase is this:
(e) When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too. 