- Sat Jun 28, 2025 9:22 am
#138784
So what happened yesterday with nationwide injunctions? Despite his busy schedule, Mr Forbes took a few minutes to summarize it:
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave courts the right to give equitable remedies. But universal injunctions were not used in the 18th Century, the 19th Century, or even in the 20th Century before 1963, when the DC Circuit issued the first one.
People in favor of universal injunctions argued they were like the historical "bill of peace" but Barrett's analysis concluded that the old bill of peace lives on today not as a universal injunction, but as what we know today as the class action lawsuit.
Just in the first 100 days of Trump's second term, there were 25 universal injunctions. But the proper role of the federal district judge, the ruling says, is not for judges to try to serve as managers of the Executive Branch. Instead, federal courts try to resolve controversy. They do not exist to provide oversight over politicians.
Barrett concludes that, because universal injunctions lack historical pedigree, they fall outside the equitable authority given to federal courts under the Judiciary Act.
It is a great ruling, and very important. It always seemed crazy to me that every federal district judge would somehow have the magic power to issue nationwide injunctions to give relief to nonparties to the case. Trump v Casa guides federal circuit judges to get rid of cases based on nationwide injunctions, and politely tells federal district judges to knock it off.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave courts the right to give equitable remedies. But universal injunctions were not used in the 18th Century, the 19th Century, or even in the 20th Century before 1963, when the DC Circuit issued the first one.
People in favor of universal injunctions argued they were like the historical "bill of peace" but Barrett's analysis concluded that the old bill of peace lives on today not as a universal injunction, but as what we know today as the class action lawsuit.
Just in the first 100 days of Trump's second term, there were 25 universal injunctions. But the proper role of the federal district judge, the ruling says, is not for judges to try to serve as managers of the Executive Branch. Instead, federal courts try to resolve controversy. They do not exist to provide oversight over politicians.
Barrett concludes that, because universal injunctions lack historical pedigree, they fall outside the equitable authority given to federal courts under the Judiciary Act.
It is a great ruling, and very important. It always seemed crazy to me that every federal district judge would somehow have the magic power to issue nationwide injunctions to give relief to nonparties to the case. Trump v Casa guides federal circuit judges to get rid of cases based on nationwide injunctions, and politely tells federal district judges to knock it off.
- By johnforbes