The days may be over by rogue district court judges in charge of appointing senior officers. Trump v. CASA, a unified case challenging lower court decisions that upheld President Trump’s executive order quashing citizenship for children who were born in the United States to illegal immigrants, is scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday. Three area judges issued striking global injunctions halting the order despite the legal authority the executive branch has been given on emigration matters. The highest judge may now have the chance to stop criminal meddling and restore harmony between the branches of government.
Advertisement
Since President Trump initially occupied his second term, progressive judges have used global injunctions against his presidency an incredible 17 times in the first few months, and that number is only going to be counted up until late March 2025. Of course, this is not a novel idea.  ,
Even Newsweek appears to think the judge will support the Trump administration.
Some judges have voiced their opinions on general rulings in recent years.
In a 2020 concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court’s liberals, argued that rulings are “meant to remedy the injuries sustained by a certain claimant in a particular complaint.”
He claimed that the court may address the “routine issuance of general injunctions is clearly impossible, growing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these opposing decisions.”
He added that plaintiffs may look for the determine who is most likely to support their cause with statewide injunctions.
There is a nearly infinite option to shop for a friendly community to secure a win nationwide because plaintiffs are generally not bound by negative decisions in cases to which they were not a celebration.
Advertisement
Even one of the Court’s three liberal justices, Justice Elena Kagan, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the obvious judge-shopping strategies used by plaintiffs to rig the system.
Because Elizabeth Prelogar, Joe Biden’s incoming Solicitor General, also filed a brief in December 2024 asking the Supreme Court to restrain these broad orders despite knowing Trump would gain from the decision, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue.  ,
Recommendation: So Much for the Recession Democrats Were Supporting
In the Trump years, people used to travel to Texas, and in the Biden years, they did so,” Kagan said in 2022. It simply can’t be right for one district judge to stop a national policy from happening and keep it in place for the duration of the process.
Let’s be honest: judicial oversight was never the focus of national injunctions. They have been used as the left’s main means of stifling President Trump’s agenda through activist judges. Any of the hundreds of district court judges in the nation can overturn a law they don’t like with just one ruling.
The left is now panicking. Without these judicial shortcuts, they will have to argue their cases on the merits rather than in front of amiable, cherry-picked judges. Even Vox acknowledged that these injunctions were” the core of the resistance.”
Advertisement
However, it’s possible that that era is over. This abuse of power appears to be under control of the Supreme Court, which will restore the constitutional balance. This moment can’t come soon enough for anyone who believes in law, not lawfare.
Want the unfiltered truth about the fight for the restoration of constitutional order and judicial activism? Through PJ Media VIP, you can get insider information and exclusive analysis on significant Supreme Court cases. Use the code FIGHT to save 60 % off and help us fight against judicial overreach. Don’t let activist judges silence conservative voices!
