Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Hog-train]

How am I the one making it complicated? The hypothetical scenario you came up with is very similar to the current issue with birthright citizenship. The Federal government does something legally questionable (in your scenario—deporting people to a 3rd country), and a district court issued an injunction against them. This injunction takes precedence over whatever other district court rules until the legality is settled by a higher court. That's all there is to it.

Why would one district court's injunction take precedence over the other court's injunction?

Both courts can do injunctions that contradict each other. Your scenario only makes sense if only one of the courts court did an injunction.

Again, court injunctions can both stop and action as well as compel an action.

How do you still not understand that? It's not some maelstrom of chaos and uncertainty. It's extremely straight-forward. A district court questions the legality of something, an injunction is issued, and the case is settled by a higher court. Period. It doesn't matter if another court on the same level rules a different way; the precedence goes to the injunction that protects the class in question. In your scenario, the injunction is nationwide, because the Federal government has jurisdiction over the entire country in matters pertaining to deportation.

What do you mean "settled by a higher court." District courts across the country are all on the same level. Then higher is appellate court and then the Supreme Court.

If you want a hypothetical scenario where the injunction isn't nationwide, then create a scenario where the Federal government isn't the party issuing the edict. In most (but not all) such scenarios, the district court's jurisdiction would be limited to their district. In that scenario, if a district court in New York ruled one way and a Texas court ruled another, one would not interfere with the other. So in other words, it would not be chaos either.

But in my example both New York and Dallas did nationwide injunctions that conflicted with each other under the old pre-SCOTUS conditions.

I don't know where you get this false belief that the NY federal district court only had limited jurisdiction for my deportation example.

Do you know what would be chaos though? If the Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions are illegal. In that scenario, instead of one injunction being issued until legality is settled, you could potentially have thousands upon thousands of lawsuits all being filed at the same time, tying up the court system for who the fuck knows how long. A scenario which also potentially leaves untold thousands of people unprotected from a potentially illegal act, because they are unable to sue the government.

But they didn't rule nationwide injunctions completely illegal. So that's a moot point.

I almost think you're trolling, because I'm having a difficult time believing that you still can't understand that. Either that or you just don't want to acknowledge it, because you realize how catastrophic the results could be.

Not trolling at all. You just don't seem to understand (or you're willfully ignoring) a very simple concept.

 

[Rod1]

This. These guys would be creaming in their pants if Biden was able to use this for student loan forgiveness.

Its insane that you guys are comparing stripping born citizens of their citizenship with student loan forgiveness...

Nonetheless i don't think Democrats would be happy with more power concentration by the SCOTUS.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Its insane that you guys are comparing stripping born citizens of their citizenship with student loan forgiveness...

Nonetheless i don't think Democrats would be happy with more power concentration by the SCOTUS.

The same ruling would have applied to both. Are you able follow whats going on?

 

[heloder]

Why would one district court's injunction take precedence over the other court's injunction?

Because the injunction that protects the class from the act in question takes precedence.

Do me a favor and read that sentence ten times, slowly. Then read it ten times again. Then maybe you'll get it.

What do you mean "settled by a higher court." District courts across the country are all on the same level. Then higher is appellate court and then the Supreme Court.

I like how you asked a question, and then answered it two sentences later. Maybe just taking a civics class or reading a couple Wikipedia articles is what you need to actually understand this topic.

But in my example both New York and Dallas did nationwide injunctions that conflicted with each other under the old pre-SCOTUS conditions.

In your scenario, the Federal government tried to deport people to a 3rd country, and a New York district court issued a nationwide injunction stopping the order.

What did the Dallas court do? You're claiming it issued an injunction compelling...what? As I said before, the act by the Federal government is assumed legal. How could the court "issue a nationwide injunction compelling" something that was already happening? That doesn't even make sense.

BUT

For the sake of you finally figuring this shit out, let's say the Dallas courts issue a nationwide injunction compelling the Federal government to continue doing what they're doing.

Guess what? It doesn't matter. Because the injunction filed in New York takes precedence until the legality is settled, because their injunction is there to protect the offended parties.

I don't know where you get this false belief that the NY federal district court only had limited jurisdiction for my deportation example.

You read the following, and then said you don't get why I think the NY district court had limited jurisdiction, even though I specifically tell you multiple times that they have nationwide jurisdiction in that scenario.

In your scenario, the injunction is nationwide, because the Federal government has jurisdiction over the entire country in matters pertaining to deportation.

I've seen some people on here with reading comprehension problems, but this is something else. I only hope English is not your first language.

 

[Rod1]

The same ruling would have applied to both. Are you able follow whats going on?

I don't think Democrats would be happy with the ruling either student loan forgiveness wasn't such an emergency that it couldn't just wait until the matter was resolved by the appropriate courts.

 

[Hog-train]

Because the injunction that protects the class from the act in question takes precedence.

You're literally just making up rules on the fly. Where in the law does it say injunctions that "protects the class" take precedence.

That's completely made up bullshit.

In your scenario, the Federal government tried to deport people to a 3rd country, and a New York district court issued a nationwide injunction stopping the order.

What did the Dallas court do? You're claiming it issued an injunction compelling...what? As I said before, the act by the Federal government is assumed legal. How could the court "issue a nationwide injunction compelling" something that was already happening? That doesn't even make sense.

No the federal government was only just trying to deport the 10 plaintiffs.

But the Dallas court went further. They issued a nationwide injunction for all Chinese illegals to be deported to the 3rd country (because China doesn't accept their citizens back.)

For the sake of you finally figuring this shit out, let's say the Dallas courts issue a nationwide injunction compelling the Federal government to continue doing what they're doing.

Guess what? It doesn't matter. Because the injunction filed in New York takes precedence until the legality is settled, because their injunction is there to protect the offended parties.

Show me the statute that says injunctions "protecting parties" supersede other injunctions.

 

[heloder]

You're literally just making up rules on the fly. Where in the law does it say injunctions that "protects the class" take precedence.

In Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 the Supreme Court showed why prohibitory injunctions are favored when there's threat of irreversible harm. I know other people have already responded to you with this, but when you compare a mandatory injunction vs a prohibitory injunction in a case like this, look at the potential consequences of each. Calling it a mandatory injunction in a case like this is retarded, but I digress.

Mandatory injunction (somebody gets detained and deported, potentially illegally, and potentially with irreversible harm)
Prohibitory injunction (the status quo is maintained until legality is settled)

Can you really not look at those two examples and understand why prohibitory injunctions are preferred?

You want another example? I think I saw earlier in this thread somebody brought up the possibility of an EO fucking with voting laws right before an election. That's a perfect example of why prohibitory injunctions are favored, and you can look at League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 for the precedence. The appeals court ruled in favor of the prohibitory injunction, again citing the possibility for irreparable harm.

No the federal government was only just trying to deport the 10 plaintiffs.

But the Dallas court went further. They issued a nationwide injunction for all Chinese illegals to be deported to the 3rd country (because China doesn't accept their citizens back.)

There are a few things wrong with this statement. First, the Federal government was already in the process of deporting them, so a mandatory injunction from the Dallas court is nothing but redundant.

Second, district courts have no authority to compel deportations in the first place, so any such injunction would be meaningless.

Third, and keeping in mind that in your scenario, the NY court argued "NO migrants can be sent to a 3rd country" and not "THESE migrants can't be sent to a 3rd country"), they could easily justify a nationwide injunction to protect not just the 5 plaintiffs in NY, but every Chinese migrant under threat of deportation to Sudan.

And what then? If the government proceeded to deport those Chinese illegals to Sudan, they could be held in contempt of court.

Now I'm sure you're aware of the recent case where Trump was deporting people to a 3rd country, and a district court did file an injunction (though this wasn't even to stop the government from doing so, but to simply do so within the confines of the law). What happened there? Trump ignored the court order and then appealed to the SCOTUS, who reversed it.

So as you can see, with the Trump administration, laws don't actually mean anything anyway.

 

[Hog-train]

In Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 the Supreme Court showed why prohibitory injunctions are favored when there's threat of irreversible harm. I know other people have already responded to you with this, but when you compare a mandatory injunction vs a prohibitory injunction in a case like this, look at the potential consequences of each. Calling it a mandatory injunction in a case like this is retarded, but I digress.

Mandatory injunction (somebody gets detained and deported, potentially illegally, and potentially with irreversible harm)
Prohibitory injunction (the status quo is maintained until legality is settled)

Can you really not look at those two examples and understand why prohibitory injunctions are preferred?

You want another example? I think I saw earlier in this thread somebody brought up the possibility of an EO fucking with voting laws right before an election. That's a perfect example of why prohibitory injunctions are favored, and you can look at League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224 for the precedence. The appeals court ruled in favor of the prohibitory injunction, again citing the possibility for irreparable harm.

There's just a higher standard of conditions needed to issue a mandatory injunction. That in no way means a prohibitory injunction from one court supersedes a mandatory one from another court.

Show me the statute that says this.

There are a few things wrong with this statement. First, the Federal government was already in the process of deporting them, so a mandatory injunction from the Dallas court is nothing but redundant.

The Federal government was in the process of deporting 10 people. Not take action nationally.

Second, district courts have no authority to compel deportations in the first place, so any such injunction would be meaningless.

Third, and keeping in mind that in your scenario, the NY court argued "NO migrants can be sent to a 3rd country" and not "THESE migrants can't be sent to a 3rd country"), they could easily justify a nationwide injunction to protect not just the 5 plaintiffs in NY, but every Chinese migrant under threat of deportation to Sudan.

And what then? If the government proceeded to deport those Chinese illegals to Sudan, they could be held in contempt of court.

Now I'm sure you're aware of the recent case where Trump was deporting people to a 3rd country, and a district court did file an injunction (though this wasn't even to stop the government from doing so, but to simply do so within the confines of the law). What happened there? Trump ignored the court order and then appealed to the SCOTUS, who reversed it.

So as you can see, with the Trump administration, laws don't actually mean anything anyway.

The whole premise of your argument is that injunctions by two separate courts cannot contradict each other. But they can.

Prime example - DACA.

One issue that has not been conclusively decided by the courts is the constitutionality of DACA protections. For example, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether or not DACA is constitution.

Since President Obama created DACA through regulations that complied with the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Trump administration might not have complied with this act and as a result a preliminary injunction was issued against the repeal of DACA. However, other state attorney generals, such as the Attorney General of Texas have argued that DACA is itself unconstitutional. The Attorney General of Texas filed this lawsuit in a different district court from the lawsuit seeking to keep DACA.

Suppose both lawsuits successfully obtained a preliminary injunction in their favor. One injunction requires the United States Federal Government to continue accepting applications for DACA relief (and if the applicant complies with procedures offer them relief from enforcement). While the other injunction requires the Federal Government to stop offering DACA protections. Suppose that both District Courts require that their orders have nationwide effect and that a stay of the injunction is not issued immediately or by the circuit court with appellate jurisdiction (and maybe the courts are in separate circuits).

Would the government be required to continue DACA or must it stop the program? They're conflicting.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Single judge in DC says Trump cannot declare an emergency at the border and all people claiming asylum must be let in.

Did give 2 week hold for appeals and such at least

Conveniently made this ruling right after the SCOTUS session ended

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/02/donald-trump-immigratin-border-asylum-ruling-00437708

 

[Darkballs]

Single judge in DC says Trump cannot declare an emergency at the border and all people claiming asylum must be let in.

No he didn't. He said that the normal asylum process had to resume.

Anyone who doubts me just needs to read any source that isn't Stephen Miller's twitter account.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Another win for Trump by SCOTUS. This FOX News segment gives a good summary. But basically there cannot be one of these universal freeze on big cuts to any of the agencies. Individual cases can still be brought if for instance the agency is required by some previous legislation from congress, they still have to keep the bare minimum to fulfill the duties of that agency.

Was surprised by this cause apparently they are on summer break, but still issuing rulings. Also was 8-1, with even Sotomayor calling out Brown-Jackson. Her passage actually summarizes the whole issue as it reverts to are the cuts stopping the agency from doing its duty. Which is shedding the bureaucracy as per the DOGE effort






She is such an attention seeking narcissist lol