Supremes Side With Trump To Take Favorite Liberal ‘Weapon’ Away

The Supreme Court stunned liberals while handing President Donald Trump a HUGE victory on Monday. Not only can the President do his job the way he sees fit, “nationwide injunctions” are now a thing of the legal past. Progressives are crying over the news because that’s been one of their most effective tactics for tying up President Trump and his administration in miles of red tape.

The issue before the high court focuses on the question of whether or not the administration can deny citizenship to someone collecting food stamps or other public aid. They can, except in Illinois. That case is still up in the air because it’s the only one that has any legal validity.

Every time President Trump issues an executive order, someone files a lawsuit against it. Left-leaning judges in the lower courts and courts of appeals, are soon signing off on “nationwide injunctions” which stop the change from going into effect from coast-to-coast. The administration spends all its time running around on a legal hamster wheel instead of getting anything done.

“Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence. This is not normal.”

On October 10, 2018, Justice Neil Gorsuch writes for the majority, “the Department of Homeland Security began a rulemaking process to define the term ‘public charge’ as it is used in the Nation’s immigration laws. Approximately 10 months and 266,000 comments later, the agency issued a final rule, Litigation swiftly followed.”

Every liberal in the country came out of the woodwork. “These plaintiffs have urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it applies to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.”

Gorsuch notes the multiple versions of the same case in a “hodge-podge of jurisdictions” met with mixed success. “If all of this is confusing,” he wrote, “don’t worry, because none of it matters much at this point.”

“Despite the fluid state of things — some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiff’s over there — we now have an injunction to rule them all.”

One Judge in New York took it upon himself to enjoin “the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.” That’s not legal and they have to stop doing it.

Modern Judges have been injecting their own political views into their decisions for way too long. “Today, the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois.” The real problem, he argues, “is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.”

All of the cases asking for “nationwide, universal, or cosmic” scope “share the same basic flaw.” They “direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”

Liberals challenge the administration in courts of “Equity.” That means their “remedies” are supposed to “redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit.” When a court crosses the line by “ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies.”

The game the Democrats have been playing is rigged, the majority write, “If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep.” Worse than the odds at winning the powerball, this means the White House would have to win 94-0 in the low courts and 12-0 in the appeals courts before any change could go into effect, which is ridiculous. “A single loss and the policy goes on ice — possibly for good.”

“What in this gamesmanship and chaos,” asks Gorsuch, “can we be proud of?”

To Top