Tea at Trianon: SCOTUS ends Nationwide Injunctions?

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Monday, June 30, 2025

SCOTUS ends Nationwide Injunctions?

From The Reactionary:

For background, nationwide injunctions – “a universal remedy whereby a court enjoins a party with respect to all persons and entities, not just parties to the litigation” – have gone from a historically non-existent remedy to one which has dramatically increased in popularity over the last 25 years. The current Trump Administration has, in particular, been a victim of that judicial overreach. Seventeen nationwide injunctions were issued against the Trump Administration in the first 60 days. Trump’s first term saw 64 nationwide injunctions. To provide context, Bush, Obama, and Biden totaled 32.
Nationwide injunctions have been roundly condemned by members of the Supreme Court, and the critics are from the left and the right, from Justice Kagan to Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. But under the guidance of Chief Justice Roberts the Court failed to act. According to Justice Gorsuch, this encouraged venue gamesmanship and sowed chaos, forcing “judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”1
The majority opinion came from Justice Barrett, who has experienced her own recent criticisms from the Right. Today gave her a temporary reprieve. Important to the Court’s analysis was the lack of similar historic remedies and how nationwide injunctions are contrary to concepts of equity and judicial power. As Justice Barrett observed, “the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history” and “were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20^th century.” In effect, relief will not be awarded to nonparties. (Read more.)