On March 28, 2025, in Attack of the Robes, I explored the problem of out-of-control federal District Judges, who, by issuing nationwide injunctions, have effectively vetoed President Trump’s Executive Orders, designed to implement the policies that voters endorsed in the 2024 election.  The blatant misconduct of the judges had gotten out of control.

Fancying themselves as super-executives, some of the 680 federal judges have stymied nearly every Trump order, by freezing executive action with nationwide injunctions, also known as universal injunctions.  What this means is, one person brings a lawsuit against the government in say, California.  The judge uses the filing of this single plaintiff to issue an injunction that prohibits the government from implementing its policy anywhere in the country.

Trump 47 Executive Orders were the subjects of more than 40 universal injunctions in five months.  85% of the injunctions came from California, Washington, Maryland, Massachusetts, and D.C., districts replete with berobed progressive ideologues masquerading as jurists.

As lawsuits and appeals take years to resolve, this practice effectively stopped the Chief Executive from governing.  Needless to say, this is not a consequence  intended by the Founders, and had it continued, our nation would have devolved into a judicial tyranny, turning democracy into judocracy, a term I had to make up because it never was intended to exist.

Last week, the Supreme Court finally remedied the situation  in Trump v. CASA, Inc.  Writing on behalf of herself, and the other five Justices on the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s    opinion drastically curtailed the issuance of universal injunctions.  The three liberal rubber stamps on the Court dissented.

I make the distinction between Justices and rubber stamps on this basis.  A judge or Justice says, “These are the facts, this is the law, therefore this is the judgment that must be reached.”  Rubber stamps, namely “Justices” Sotomayor, Kagin, and Jackson, employ a different methodology.  “Here is the result I must reach, so here’s the judgment.”  Simple, but hardly judicial.

In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett recounts that the use of universal injunctions was nearly unknown from the Founding until the 1960’s.  In the 21st Century, they have become more prevalent.

In a nutshell, the proper role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the question before them in terms of the original intent of the Founders who enacted the Constitution.  By this method, if a practice is not included in the Constitution, was not recognized by English Common Law at the time the Constitution was ratified, or was not granted to the Courts by Congress, then it is not authorized.

Nothing in the Constitution permits universal injunctions, nor was the practice part of English Common Law.  The only Court in the Constitution is the Supreme Court.  All other federal courts are created by Congress, which spells out the limits of their powers.  Congress never granted the right to issue universal injunctions.

Injunction is a remedy available to judges, but as Justice Sotomayor herself has noted, it is relief that may be afforded only to parties to a lawsuit, not to the public at large.

Justice Barrett devoted much of her opinion to a refutation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.  This practice in itself is routine.  However, the tone of the refutation was unusually blunt for a Supreme Court opinion.  Normally, when a Justice says something meant to convey the notion that his or her colleague’s position is a load of crap, it’s done in gentle language, such as, “my learned colleague is mistaken.”  Justice Barrett’s take down of the Jackson dissent was no less than a brutal slap down, and one which was well deserved.

Justice Jackson is a product of Harvard.  She served on the Board of Harvard Overseers.  (I thought “overseer” was a racist title).  Anyway, it’s now clear why Harvard is so screwed up.  As a District Court judge, she invalidated a number of Trump 45 Executive Orders, writing, “a President is not a King.”  This made her a perfect Biden appointment to the high Court, which Biden was seeking to “Trump proof.”

In her dissent, Justice Jackson says the real question before the Court wasn’t whether a District Court judge is authorized to issue a universal injunction, because that’s a “mind numbing technical query.”  According to her, the real question is, “may a federal court order an Executive to follow the law?”

Confirming her claim that she doesn’t know what a woman is, Jackson wrote, “those who birthed our nation limited the powers of government to protect freedom.”  (I guess she considers the Founders birthing persons).  Jackson fails to notice that the judiciary is part of the government.  Moreover, judicial tyranny is more dangerous than Executive or Congressional tyranny, because we get to vote for them.  Judges are installed for life.

Justice Barret minced no words, writing that Jackson’s dissent “is not tethered to statute or precedent, nor frankly to any doctrine whatsoever.”  Jackson recognizes really no limit to judicial power.  Justice Barrett writes, “she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”  Barrett added, the Jackson position “is at odds with two centuries of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” Ouch!

Jackson complains that the analysis of the majority of the Court “involves boring legalese.”  Her prescription?  Once a judge decides something is illegal, everyone, everywhere must comply.  This sort of applies the Left’s Anthony Fauci principle to the judiciary.  Fauci was “the science,” so when he spoke, rightly or wrongly, all were obliged to submit.  Judges are “the law,” so when they speak, “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”

The Jackson opinion remarkably states that “the Majority is so caught up in the minutiae of the government’s self-serving arguments, that it misses the plot.”  Firstly, every party to a lawsuit makes self-serving arguments.  It’s their job.  And as Professor Jonathan Turley aptly notes the “minuitae” that Jackson complains of consists of things like the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1798.  Turley added, “It’s the minutiae that distinguishes  the rule of law from judicial impulse.  Simply put, if one can’t be bothered by such “minutiae,” then one ought to avoid a judicial career.

While Jackson sees the role of the judiciary as overseers of the Executive, Justice Barrett correctly points out that’s not the proper judicial role.  Judges may resolve cases and controversies affecting the particular plaintiffs and defendants before the court.  The judiciary is not a super-government.  Jackson’s overriding principle is “everyone from the President on down must follow the law.”  As Justice Barrett wisely reminds her, “that goes for judges too,” adding, “when a court concludes that the Executive has acted unlawfully, the correction is not for the court to exceed its power too.”

All in all, the majority opinion in this case returns District Court judges to their proper lane, while at the same time conveying the clear message that Justice Jackson doesn’t know what she’s talking about.  When one judge’s review of  another judge’s argument starts with the phrase, “As best we can tell,” the plain language translation is, “disregard that, it’s gibberish.”

Here’s hoping that, with the meddlesome judges out of the way, the Trump agenda can move forward.