Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
"Lower courts lost, and the executive branch got mixed results."
Justice Kagan said "it just can't be right" that a single court judge can stop a federal policy in its tracks nationwide.
Two worthwhile commentaries on the Supreme Court's decision to curtail universal injunctions.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” declared Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Today's Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions could empower the federal government to engage in large-scale violations of the Constitution. Exactly how bad the consequences will be depends on the extent to which other remedies can be used to forestall them.
The two newest justices spar over universal injunctions.
Justice Barrett writes for the Court's majority that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable power of federal courts.
The Senate has adopted its own version of a provision designed to limit preliminary injunctions against the federal government when no bond is posted.
Kovarsky and Rave defend the use of class actions in AEA habeas cases. Vladeck highlights the significance of the Supreme Court's grant of an injunction to a "putative class" of AEA detainees.
Nationwide illegality by the federal government requires a nationwide remedy.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10