Supreme Court - Universal Injunctions
I will make an exception to refraining from commenting on Saturday because of the significant events that have occurred since our Let’s Do Something Meeting #10 this Thursday, June 26, 2025, and the emphasis on the disappointing ones.
Many of us were rightly disturbed by two significant developments:
- On Friday, the Supreme Court decided that universal injunctions will generally not be available to those challenging violations of the law by the Trump administration. One cannot characterize this as anything but a setback to advocates of the “rule of law,” although the setback may not be as devastating as the President portrayed in his remarks on Friday. I agree with Prof. Vladek’s substack posting on Friday, entitled, 162. What Does the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Portend?, that questions remain about the extent of the damage. We should watch how quickly the courts move to make substantive decisions on the underlying birthright citizenship issue.
- On Friday, there was an announcement of the resignation of the University of Virginia President in response to pressure from the administration about the University’s DEI/diversity activities. Again, this cannot be characterized as anything but a setback to advocates of university autonomy, although unlike Yale or Harvard, the school is a public institution. Thus, it is already under considerable government supervision.
There were two significant positive events that have been given far less attention:
- On Friday Susman & Godfrey obtained a memorandum opinion and summary judgment order permanently enjoining the administration from implementing, enforcing, or giving effect to the executive action targeting the law firm. This is the same result as was obtained by the three other major law firms, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and Wilmer Hale targeted by the administration. There are no other outstanding law firm orders, so the courts have done well protecting the major law firms from explicit retribution.
- On Friday there was a scheduled hearing on a preliminary injunction motion by the attorney, Mark Zaid, to restore his national security access. His complaint describes a March 22, 2025 executive memorandum that rescinded the security clearances from the following individuals, Antony Blinken, Jacob Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Andrew Weissmann, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Cheney, Kamala Harris, Adam Kinzinger, Fiona Hill, Alexander Vindman, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and any other member of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s family.
- A Friday Gothamist Story entitled, How voters in Trump districts helped Mamdani win the Democratic primary. This story suggests that, at least in New York, there are a significant number of Trump voters who are willing and able to vote for the right Democrat. One observer described Mr. Mamdani’s electoral approach as follows, “When you speak to people in the languages that they speak and about issues they care about, they respond, and when you don’t, they don’t.” The general election will give us more evidence of Mr. Mamdani’s ability to maintain support against candidates who like Trump will probably engage in more and better financed ad hominem attacks than the ones he confronted in the primary. We will thus have a better field test of this approach and of the positions that Mr. Mamdani is emphasizing in his campaign, but the victory should give us hope that positive change may be within our grasp.