Supreme Court Drops Trump’s Bummer: A “GIANT WIN” for the President
In a pop‑hittin’ decision on June 27, the Supreme Court turned the tide for President Donald Trump and called it a “GIANT WIN.”
The high court made it clear that the lower courts had probably gone overboard by issuing blanket injunctions that halted a handful of Trump’s policies. Now those orders are off the table.
What This Means in a Nutshell
- The Supreme Court says the lower courts may have exceeded their authority.
- Trump’s policies, previously under siege, are now free to move forward.
- It’s a win that has fans cheering and critics scratching their heads.
Why It’s a Big Deal
With these injunctions lifted, Trump can push his agenda without delays from the courts. The decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape and fuels the political debate furiously.
Looking Ahead
Keep an eye out—there might be more court battles brewing, but for now, the president’s crew is celebrating a monumental courtroom victory.
Who’s Still Trying to Fool the Courts?
Even after the Supreme Court tossed out the “universal injunction” idea in Trump v. CASA, folks have been digging around for loopholes like it’s a game of Tetris.
Class Actions: The New Playbook
People are lining up a handful of plaintiffs to represent a whole nation. It’s a bit like “who’s the lead in a blockbuster?”—everyone else is just standing in for the main character.
Breaking Down the Rules
- Rule 23 check‑list: “Is there a group, do we represent them, and will we keep it fair?”
- Judges give it a thumbs‑up only after a “deep dive.”
“If we skip it, the court could swoop back in with new, tighter rules.”—Justice Alito, with his trusty sidekick Thomas.
Case in Point: New Hampshire & D.C.
Norm Eisen’s crew got a win in New Hampshire, blocking the ban on birthright citizenship. They’re now fighting a case where a pair of new-state lawsuits aim to stop Trump’s border crackdown.
On July 3 a New Hampshire judge said “yes” for a nationwide class. Then the D.C. judge on July 2 certified a class that could cover everyone who might be affected by Trump’s asylum rule.
Chad Mizelle (who runs the DOJ’s office for Pam Bondi) blasted the decision on Twitter:
“UNI-CLASS → Zero restrictions, all people covered. SCOTUS must stop the #JudicialCoup.”
Why the Ruling May Have Been a Bit Light
Universally, the court said the ruling does not ban class actions. Nobody gets nailed for using them to get a blanket stop.
Other Hot Paths to Affordable Relief
- State‑as‑Plaintiff—states can claim standing for all their residents.
- Complete Relief—judges might think “one absolute stop for everyone” is acceptable.
- Vacatur—a stare‑down on Administrative Procedure Act to knock out agency rules.
Justice Barrett hinted that the vacatur answer is still open. Hopeful litigants like those in the asylum case are already using it.
Legislators Pull Don’t‑Resist Fists
Sen. Grassley and Rep. Issa are drafting bills to make it tough for lower courts to fudge broad class relief. The proposed “Judicial Relief Clarification Act” would also put a cap on vacatur use.
When Judges Go Too Bold
Case after case shows some judges issuing orders that demand the administration defy Congressional law—no sign of an answer.
Rep. Issa says we’re working on “meaningful checks.”
Final Thought
The Supreme Court has been playing a game of “whack‑a‑mole” with lower courts. Some judges are still rocking the “I’ve got this” vibe, while legislators and lawyers are trying to keep the system from turning into a circus.