That's what the rules are, now. That's why the SCOTUS has been willing to reverse the district courts. They do not have the authority, and they know it. They just issued the injunctions, anyway.
I actually wrote a paper on these injunctions, and injunctions in general.
The problem is that an injunction must be limited to the parties, because they're the only ones in the lawsuit. And: People, including judges, misinterpret what a judge is doing when he declares a law unconstitutional. He is not "knocking down the law" or "blocking it." He's saying that the enforcement of the law is illegal. The law is still on the books. So, you have a massive willful misunderstanding of the judiciary.
If Trump made an EO ordering every Jew into Auschwitz, all a judge can do is restrain Trump (or more likely the government department rounding up Jews) from rounding up the Jews involved in the lawsuit. Who cannot be every Jew in America. It would either be an org representing the Jews, or a single Jew. (Think of it this way: When a restaraunt gets sued for not allowing Blacks in, it's the single Black harmed by the restaraunt rule that is suing. Only he can sue because only he can show immediate harm and damages.) The example is extreme, but I'm using it because this is what the people who keep frantically blocking Trump and suing think is happening with these immigraton orders. Even if Trump was Hitler, a judge can not stop him. You can only stop him with impeachment. That's what impeachment is for. A judge just declares actions illegal.
The purpose of an injunction is to stop imminent or ongoing harms that are known to be legally prohibited. This is why the Supreme Court keeps lifting these injunctions, because the lawsuit is about whether Trump's actions are prohibited. An injunction is for something like where you sue a company for dumping waste in your stream and it is known that the company is doing this. And also there must be no other remedy for the harm (so, you can't sue for money damages).
I'm gonna stop now before I rewrite my whole paper.
Just a reminder, peeps: This is the removal of the retarded nationwide injunction placed on the rule. The court has yet to rule on the case.
We need to change the rules so that a district court judge’s injunction only effects his district and doesn’t act as a nationwide injunction.
That's what the rules are, now. That's why the SCOTUS has been willing to reverse the district courts. They do not have the authority, and they know it. They just issued the injunctions, anyway.
The scotus release specifically mentioned "cosmic" injunctions and may be one of the reasons the case is heard at some point.
I actually wrote a paper on these injunctions, and injunctions in general.
The problem is that an injunction must be limited to the parties, because they're the only ones in the lawsuit. And: People, including judges, misinterpret what a judge is doing when he declares a law unconstitutional. He is not "knocking down the law" or "blocking it." He's saying that the enforcement of the law is illegal. The law is still on the books. So, you have a massive willful misunderstanding of the judiciary.
If Trump made an EO ordering every Jew into Auschwitz, all a judge can do is restrain Trump (or more likely the government department rounding up Jews) from rounding up the Jews involved in the lawsuit. Who cannot be every Jew in America. It would either be an org representing the Jews, or a single Jew. (Think of it this way: When a restaraunt gets sued for not allowing Blacks in, it's the single Black harmed by the restaraunt rule that is suing. Only he can sue because only he can show immediate harm and damages.) The example is extreme, but I'm using it because this is what the people who keep frantically blocking Trump and suing think is happening with these immigraton orders. Even if Trump was Hitler, a judge can not stop him. You can only stop him with impeachment. That's what impeachment is for. A judge just declares actions illegal.
The purpose of an injunction is to stop imminent or ongoing harms that are known to be legally prohibited. This is why the Supreme Court keeps lifting these injunctions, because the lawsuit is about whether Trump's actions are prohibited. An injunction is for something like where you sue a company for dumping waste in your stream and it is known that the company is doing this. And also there must be no other remedy for the harm (so, you can't sue for money damages).
I'm gonna stop now before I rewrite my whole paper.