A Short Reflection on Trump and Universal Injunctions

 

I have given up guessing what the Supreme Court will do on anything -- including universal injunctions.  When the Trump Administration argued against universal injunctions in the case of birthright citizenship, apparently Justice Kavanaugh seemed skeptical, raising hopes that they will allow universal injunctions at least in this case.

I hope they do.  Clearly there needs to be a single, nationwide rule birthright citizenship, and I am confident that, with a little ingenuity, the Supreme Court can make one in this case while leaving the question open whether universal injunctions are allowed in any other case.  Or maybe it can come up with a rule so convoluted and incomprehensible that no one has any idea when universal injunctions are and are not allowed.

Attorney General Raul Torrez

I am rather of mixed thoughts on whether to allow universal injunctions in other cases.  I recently heard New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez speak, and thought he had excellent things to say on many issues.  I share his frustration with both Joe Biden and the New Mexico State Legislature for acting as if this were a perfectly ordinary occasion and focusing on ordinary issues instead of recognizing the democracy is on the line and acting to shore it up.  At the same time, I also agreed with him that ordinary voters just don't seem to care.  They find democracy too abstract and want leaders to deal with more immediate and concrete issues.

But I am not sure I agree with him on universal injunctions.  Torrez warned that without universal injunctions, lawsuits by state would lose half their power since the injunction would only apply in states that joined in the lawsuit.  To which I am inclined to say -- so much the better!  Republican states have been free riding of suits by Democratic Attorney Generals for too long.  Right before Torrez, we heard from a medical researcher warning about the devastating effects DOGE cuts to research could have on our healthcare system.  And the danger was not something remote, with cures not being found.  The harm is happening in the immediate future.

Consider, then if court rulings to block the cuts applied only in states that joined in the suit.*  That would put every Republican Attorney General on the spot.  Either join in the lawsuit and come out against Trump, or stay out and see valuable funds cut, sometimes with devastating effects.  I can't think of a better way to split the movement and bring the practice to an end.  Granted, some people will object that if we allow cuts to go through in red states, innocent people will be hurt.  But it should be clear by now that keeping Trump from hurting people simply enables him to continue.  Only the prospect of hurting supporters will stop him.  

Rumor has it that was why he backed down on tariffs against China.

_________________________________
*Admittedly, DOGE cuts appear to be running their course and the next set of injunctions will presumably deal with immigration -- a different dynamic altogether.  It is also true that Republican members of Congress were able to quietly intervene to restore funding in some cases.