Summary

Trump has intensified his opposition to nationwide injunctions, calling for Congress and the Supreme Court to limit district courts’ power to block federal policies nationwide.

These injunctions have repeatedly halted Trump’s second-term initiatives, including attempts to end birthright citizenship and deport migrants under a 1789 law.

Trump’s administration argues that these orders undermine executive authority and seeks permanent relief to restrict their use.

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns but has not yet ruled on the issue.

    • stickly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Not quite, undermine implies sabotaging standard process. Trump doesn’t actually have the authority to do this shit. Their rulings block over reach but don’t currently undermine anything.

  • TingoTenga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    3 days ago

    But nationwide injunctions are totally fine when issued in Texas to block student loan forgiveness or reproductive rights.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 days ago

      This could be a good thing. Trump doesn’t realize he is stripping the ability of the 5th circuit to be assholes at scale.

      • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Oh that would still apply. It’s the application of law that defines the new American caste system.

        /s

  • CubitOom@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Our objective, one way or another, is to make clear that the district courts of this country do not have the authority to direct the functions of the executive branch. Period,”

    Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff

  • Dragomus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    The lawbook is the same, as is any judge’s role to oversee/uphold such law… But that’s inconvenient information.

    So, as usual they use nice and plausible sounding words, but the end of the matter is that someone needs his decrees to be above (judgement against) the law…

    Slowly taking away local judges’ (and states) rights to review nationwide law and only rule on local matters while the king decides is a callback to the middle ages.