Liberals fumed over the Supreme Court’s 6-3 June landmark decision (Trump v. CASA) ending routine “nationwide injunctions.” Those on the left saw it as further evidence the High Court is marching in lockstep to the right.
This was a victory for President Trump, but it will work in favor of future Democratic Presidents as well. The ruling simply means that a single federal trial judge can’t block a government policy nationwide.
For 174 years after constitutional governance began in 1789, no federal judge issued a nationwide injunction, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in writing the Court’s majority opinion. There is no historical tradition for such sweeping relief.
Courts slapped the first Trump administration with 64 nationwide injunctions, with Democrat-nominated judges issuing 92% of these orders.
In Trump’s second administration, during February alone district courts ordered 15 nationwide injunctions —more than President Biden faced in his first three years in office.
During Biden’s administration, Democrats raged about conservative district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions against a wide range of liberal policies. Their views have now reversed.
Back in 2022, liberal Justice Elena Kagan observed: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.”
The Supreme Court’s end-of- term statistics compiled by the website SCOTUSblog yielded some surprises:
Justice Kagen, the Supreme Court’s leading liberal, was in the majority 70% in this term’s non-unanimous outcomes.
In contrast, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, staunch conservatives, were each at 62%, tied with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, just above Justice Neil Gorsuch’s 61%.
Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority most frequently in non-unanimous cases (92%), with Justice Brett Kavanaugh second (86%) and Justice Barrett third (81%).
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the majority 51%, the least of any justice.
Notably, the statistics also show 42% of Supreme Court rulings this year were unanimous. Another 24% of cases produced lopsided decisions, 8-1 and 7-2 (or else 7-1 with a recusal).
Only 9% of cases overall, six total, resulted in ideological split 6-3 outcomes, with the liberal justices dissenting as a bloc. That compares with 6% of cases, or four, that had 6-3 decisions with conservative Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch in the minority.
This term the Justices were unanimous that a state can’t deny religious nonprofits a tax exemption because they don’t proselytize or restrict their assistance based on faith (Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin). Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion overturning a 4-3 decision by Wisconsin’s liberal Supreme Court.
They were unanimous that plaintiffs in “reverse discrimination” suits must meet the same legal burden as anyone else, meaning they don’t need to prove anything extra (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services). Justice Jackson wrote the opinion affirming the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies equally to all Americans.
They were unanimous on reining in lower-court judges who have sought to micromanage environmental agencies doing federal permitting (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County).
They were unanimous that American victims of terrorism aren’t barred by the Constitution from suing the Palestine Liberation Organization in U.S. courts (Fuld v. PLO).
They appeared unanimous in upholding the law passed by Congress that says TikTok must cut ties with Chinese control or be banned from U.S. app stores (TikTok v. Garland), with an unsigned opinion.
In the term ending in June, the six conservative justices splintered in more than a dozen cases in which at least two joined with all three liberals to form a majority, resulting in scrambled lineups.
“I think liberals should be thankful to President Trump for appointing more moderate conservatives,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor and close Supreme Court observer. “It could be much worse for them.”
