National Injunctions vs. Legal Gridlock: Why Limiting Federal Judges Hurts the People

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT)

With fact-checking and editorial review by Grok-3 and Gemini

---

Teaser

What happens when a federal judge declares a law unconstitutional—but only for a few people? In this post, Miles and Beth unpack the growing legal debate around national injunctions, showing how attempts to limit them don’t just create chaos—they hurt real people.

---

Main Conversation

Miles’ Opening

Let’s talk about this news article. Can you sum it up for me first? I’ve got a few questions after that.

---

Beth’s Summary of the News Article

The Supreme Court is preparing to rule on national injunctions in the context of a challenge to former President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.

• Unusual Context: Courts are reacting to an exceptional case. Alan Trammell (W&L Law) noted it’s extraordinary for a president to try rewriting the Citizenship Clause.
• National Injunction Debate: Legal scholars like Samuel Bray see this case as a clean opportunity to define the limits of national injunctions. The order’s clear illegality avoids sidetracking into constitutional questions.
• Judicial Opinions: Justices Gorsuch and Kagan have criticized broad injunctions and forum shopping, where parties pick favorable districts.
• Court’s Past Hesitation: Despite concerns, SCOTUS has dodged this issue in the past. The Biden DOJ had asked the Court to step in after a Texas judge blocked a federal law, but the Court declined.
• Strategic Implications: Ilya Somin thinks SCOTUS might actually reaffirm national injunctions in this clear-cut case. Bray believes they might limit them but still uphold birthright citizenship.

Bottom line: This decision could redefine how federal courts block unconstitutional policies—affecting not just this case, but how future national disputes are handled.

---

Miles’ Follow-Up

Federal courts deal with laws that apply across the whole country. So if Trump wins this case, does that mean a federal law might only be enforceable in some regions? And isn’t his executive order basically a kind of federal law?

---

Beth’s Response

Excellent questions. Let’s break that down:

1. If Trump Wins, What Happens to Nationwide Application of Law?
   • Federal laws still apply nationally. But if universal injunctions are restricted, enforcement could vary regionally until higher courts rule.
   • That means one judge can’t block a policy for everyone—only for those who sued in that region.
   • You’d end up with multiple lawsuits and patchwork rulings.
2. Is an Executive Order a Federal Law?
   • No—it’s not passed by Congress. But it is a federal directive that agencies must follow.
   • Executive orders can be challenged in court and struck down if unconstitutional or in conflict with federal law.

So yes, his order is federal in scope, but not federal law in the legislative sense.

---

Miles’ Point

But if a federal judge rules that a policy violates the Constitution, shouldn’t that apply to everyone, not just the people who sued?

---

Beth’s Response

That’s the heart of it.

• In principle: Yes. A constitutional violation affects everyone.
• In practice: Courts are only authorized to provide relief for the people in the case in front of them—unless they issue a nationwide injunction.

That’s what’s being debated: whether federal judges should have the authority to extend relief beyond the named plaintiffs. Critics say it’s too much power. But without it, you risk a rights lottery based on geography.

---

Miles Again

Forum shopping isn’t ideal, but it’s not fatal. The appeals process is there to correct abuse.

---

Beth’s Response

Exactly. Forum shopping is legal and widely practiced:

• Litigants seek sympathetic judges.
• Critics argue it politicizes justice.
• But appeals courts and the Supreme Court exist to restore balance.

Forum shopping creates friction, not finality—and sometimes that friction drives important national rulings.

---

Miles’ Final Argument

If judges can’t issue national rulings:

• We’ll get conflicting outcomes.
• People will be stuck in limbo, waiting years for clarity.
• Lawyers will benefit, not the public.
• The executive branch will benefit from slower judicial response, buying time to enforce questionable policies before courts can act broadly.

Universal injunctions stop that. They apply the Constitution consistently, move quickly to appeal, and offer protection to everyone—not just those who can afford to sue. Limiting them just drags justice out. It’s a bureaucratic shield for power, not a tool for people.

---

Beth’s Summary

Well said, Miles:

• Limiting national injunctions means fragmented rights and delayed justice.
• It forces duplicate lawsuits, slows relief, and favors those with legal resources.
• National injunctions offer speed, clarity, and equal constitutional protection.