Today the Supreme Court delivered a huge win, not just for the Trump administration, but for democracy. The Court held that the federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to issue “universal injunctions,” i.e., injunctions that apply to everyone, not just the parties to the case.
Universal injunctions have long been controversial, but the issue has come to a head because of the Democratic Party’s practice of trying to paralyze the Trump administration by recruiting a handful of plaintiffs and bringing an action before a sympathetic Democratic Party judge, in which the Democrats request temporary or preliminary relief barring the Trump administration from carrying out the policy at issue. Such relief has sometimes been granted without even waiting to hear a response from the government. This has, in effect, given the Democratic Party a judicial veto over policies that have been enacted by Congress and are being executed by the administration–e.g., our immigration laws.
You can read the Court’s opinion, by Justice Amy Barrett, here. The opinion takes a pretty deep dive into history, because the case turns on interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which in turn requires a review of the relief that could be issued by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the Judiciary Act.
This decision is a good example of the Court actually following the law in an objective manner, rather than making up an ad hoc principle that a majority of justices consider to be good policy. Justice Barrett writes:
Respondents defend universal injunctions as a matter of policy; the Government advances policy arguments running the other way. As with most questions of law, the policy pros and cons are beside the point. Under the Court’s well-established precedent, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 319, because universal injunctions lack a founding-era forebear, federal courts lack authority to issue them.
Not surprisingly, the three liberal justices dissented. Justices Thomas and Alito wrote concurring opinions. I may have more to say after reviewing all of the opinions in more detail.
