XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: stal81@facebook.com   
      
   The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. marks a major shift   
   in how federal courts may police executive action. In the Court’s June   
   27, 2025 decision, a 6-3 majority held that so-called “universal” or   
   nationwide injunctions — orders barring enforcement of a federal law or   
   policy against all persons, not just the parties before the court —   
   exceed the equitable authority that Congress granted to federal courts.   
      
   The Supreme Court held that the universal injunctions were improper.   
   Justice Barrett’s majority opinion rested on the Judiciary Act of 1789 —   
   the statute that authorizes federal courts to issue remedies like   
   injunctions. The Court held that the Judiciary Act authorizes only those   
   remedies traditionally available in English courts at the time the   
   United States was founded. The Court viewed that historical tradition as   
   largely foreclosing universal injunctions. The Court acknowledged,   
   however, that there may be situations where granting a broad injunction   
   is necessary to provide the plaintiff “complete relief” in the case.   
      
   In other words, activist judges be warned.  Your left-wing lawfarce   
   attacks on the federal government are over.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)