Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time to read and engage. These cases flew a bit under the radar for how impactful they are, so I’m glad this breakdown was helpful.
It seems to me that the first you described is SCOTUS issuing a no-confidence vote in the Judicial process. If the administration is erasing constitutional rights, it makes sense that a single ruling would effect the whole country. With 94 districts, do we really want to increase federal case load by two orders of magnitude by filing in each district. The appeals process can work just fine... if that single judge is found to have overreacted, or ruled incorrectly, that's what appeals are for. SCOTUS has just abdicated the role of the Judiciary to protect constitutional rights and provide a check on an out-of-control Executive
Yes, this is such an important point. If a federal court finds a constitutional violation, limiting relief to only the named plaintiffs—especially in urgent contexts—feels like judicial abdication, not restraint. The idea that we’d need 94 separate lawsuits to stop a rights-violating policy is both impractical and deeply dangerous. Thank you for articulating that so clearly.
And in Mahmoud v Taylor, I dont hear anyone talking about the negative impact on the children of the parents who exclude... for the child who is told by a teacher that they cannot participate in a story reading (because their parents object), that child will be the one feeling ostracized. They will internalize that they are being excluded because they did something wrong. These parents will also heighten the interest of their children in what is being kept from them. Is inflicting pain on your own child a good option, compared to letting them hear a story where a kid happens to have two dads?
You raise such an important and heartbreaking point. So much of the conversation has centered on parental rights and religious freedom—but far too little attention has been paid to the children caught in the middle.
When a child is pulled out of a classroom, especially during something as formative and communal as story time, it sends a powerful message—one they may not understand yet, but will certainly feel. That message can be one of shame, exclusion, or fear, and those early emotional wounds can linger for a lifetime.
And you’re right: withholding something from a child often makes it more mysterious or alluring. But beyond that, it also sets them apart from their peers in ways that can isolate or stigmatize them. We should be creating inclusive environments that help children learn about the world they live in—not shielding them from stories that reflect the diversity of the communities they’re part of.
Thanks for bringing this perspective into the conversation. It’s one we need to uplift more loudly.
Thank you so much—that truly means a lot. I know how dense and overwhelming these decisions can be, so I’m grateful to be able to break them down in a way that feels accessible and grounded in what’s really at stake. I’ll keep doing my best to cut through the legal noise and keep us all informed (and maybe a little fired up too!). Appreciate you being here.
Haha—I wish I had time for a speed reading course! I read every decision myself (sometimes multiple times!) but I do occasionally use AI to find specific lines faster. The analysis and summaries, though? That’s all me—grounded in my 15 years as a public defender.
Well I would say that you can get be reading expertise from YouTube and practice it yourself and honestly you'll go from reading a 15-page dissertation in 20 minutes to 1:00 I swear it works It made such a difference for me It just takes training I'm sure you're fast because of all of the 15 years but I bet this will take you up a notch just a thought in your copious free time. 🤭🫂
The supreme court’s limiting power of the lower courts flies in the face of what Roberts said about a month ago that basically trump etc had to listen to the lower courts and now seems to have changed his mind hmmm wonder what happened there.
Exactly. There’s such inconsistency—Roberts just emphasized the importance of following lower court rulings, yet here the majority curtails their power to issue nationwide injunctions. It’s hard not to see this as ideologically driven rather than principled.
I have to say I read this last night before going to sleep and woke up with such a panic in my chest. That said, my question in light of the ruling regarding injunctions and federal court reach is this; what are the concerns regarding precedent? Since our legal system is a living breathing changing body of laws and codes, the SCOTUS ruling that basically amputates federal courts’ voice on matters that have broader application, such as constitutional guarantees, than merely the plaintiffs in a particular case, seems itself to gag future federal courts. When Barrett said there was no historical precedent, is this factual, and will it extend to other types of federal court cases that rely on precedent or creating precedent?
In fact, that may lead to a second question; how is precedent created?
I hope my question is clear and apologize if it is other.
Colleen, thank you for this deeply thoughtful comment—and your question is absolutely clear (and incredibly important).
You're exactly right to flag the issue of precedent. The Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA does more than just limit relief to named plaintiffs—it undercuts the ability of federal courts to issue rulings that have broad, systemic effect even when constitutional rights are at stake. That’s terrifying.
To your first question: yes, Justice Barrett claimed there’s no historical precedent for nationwide injunctions—but many legal scholars disagree. Courts have long issued broad injunctive relief when systemic harm is proven, especially in civil rights cases. What this ruling does is create a much more cramped vision of judicial power—essentially saying, “Even if a law is unconstitutional, courts can only protect the people who sued.” That’s not how we’ve historically treated constitutional rights, and it opens the door to wildly inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
As for precedent more broadly: it’s created when courts—especially appellate courts—decide a legal question and publish an opinion. Lower courts are then expected to follow those decisions. But if courts can no longer issue broad rulings that impact people beyond the immediate parties, the power to set precedent could become much more fractured and limited.
In short: your instinct is right. This ruling isn’t just about one immigration order. It’s about reshaping the judiciary’s role in safeguarding rights. And that should worry all of us. Thank you again for raising it.
So now he can create an executive order for anything he wants and the only way to stop it is for an individual to go to court or does it mean a group of people can do a class action too More clarification please (You did not hear the exasperation in my voice as I said that but it's there in buckets)
I definitely heard the exasperation—because I feel it too.
Here’s the bottom line: after Trump v. CASA, if a president issues an unconstitutional executive order, lower courts can still block it—but only for the people or groups who are plaintiffs in that specific case. That means no more nationwide injunctions (unless and until the Supreme Court weighs in).
So yes, you’re right: if an executive order violates your rights, you or your group need to sue. And unless you bring a class action (which takes time and is procedurally complex), the court’s order won’t protect anyone else—even if the same harm is happening to thousands of people.
It’s a massive shift in how courts can respond to unlawful government action. And it creates a dangerous game of whack-a-mole, where every new abuse has to be fought one lawsuit at a time. You're absolutely right to want clarification—and to be outraged.
I posed a question to a friend... imagine if a president cited data that most gun violence is committed by men, so she issued a public-health emergency executive order banning men from owning guns, and required DOJ to buy back guns from men for $1 each, since with 300 million used guns on the market, fair-market-value of used guns would be minimal. And for men to claim this violated the 2nd ammendment, each man had to individually sue in federal court.
On that issue, he thought a single Federal Judge should be able to put a stay on what he viewed as an obvious violation of the constitution. Interesting how constitutional rights are only important if they affect you.
Eliza, thank you for sharing this and for breaking down these crucial cases!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time to read and engage. These cases flew a bit under the radar for how impactful they are, so I’m glad this breakdown was helpful.
It seems to me that the first you described is SCOTUS issuing a no-confidence vote in the Judicial process. If the administration is erasing constitutional rights, it makes sense that a single ruling would effect the whole country. With 94 districts, do we really want to increase federal case load by two orders of magnitude by filing in each district. The appeals process can work just fine... if that single judge is found to have overreacted, or ruled incorrectly, that's what appeals are for. SCOTUS has just abdicated the role of the Judiciary to protect constitutional rights and provide a check on an out-of-control Executive
Yes, this is such an important point. If a federal court finds a constitutional violation, limiting relief to only the named plaintiffs—especially in urgent contexts—feels like judicial abdication, not restraint. The idea that we’d need 94 separate lawsuits to stop a rights-violating policy is both impractical and deeply dangerous. Thank you for articulating that so clearly.
JC that truly sucks big time. But thanks for explaining it as it is.
And in Mahmoud v Taylor, I dont hear anyone talking about the negative impact on the children of the parents who exclude... for the child who is told by a teacher that they cannot participate in a story reading (because their parents object), that child will be the one feeling ostracized. They will internalize that they are being excluded because they did something wrong. These parents will also heighten the interest of their children in what is being kept from them. Is inflicting pain on your own child a good option, compared to letting them hear a story where a kid happens to have two dads?
You raise such an important and heartbreaking point. So much of the conversation has centered on parental rights and religious freedom—but far too little attention has been paid to the children caught in the middle.
When a child is pulled out of a classroom, especially during something as formative and communal as story time, it sends a powerful message—one they may not understand yet, but will certainly feel. That message can be one of shame, exclusion, or fear, and those early emotional wounds can linger for a lifetime.
And you’re right: withholding something from a child often makes it more mysterious or alluring. But beyond that, it also sets them apart from their peers in ways that can isolate or stigmatize them. We should be creating inclusive environments that help children learn about the world they live in—not shielding them from stories that reflect the diversity of the communities they’re part of.
Thanks for bringing this perspective into the conversation. It’s one we need to uplift more loudly.
Your time reading all of that legal jargon and translating to reality is deeply appreciated Eliza. As always, your awesomeness is … awesome.
Thank you so much—that truly means a lot. I know how dense and overwhelming these decisions can be, so I’m grateful to be able to break them down in a way that feels accessible and grounded in what’s really at stake. I’ll keep doing my best to cut through the legal noise and keep us all informed (and maybe a little fired up too!). Appreciate you being here.
I'm sure you've taken a speed reading course But do you use any AI to summarize some of these decisions?
Haha—I wish I had time for a speed reading course! I read every decision myself (sometimes multiple times!) but I do occasionally use AI to find specific lines faster. The analysis and summaries, though? That’s all me—grounded in my 15 years as a public defender.
Well I would say that you can get be reading expertise from YouTube and practice it yourself and honestly you'll go from reading a 15-page dissertation in 20 minutes to 1:00 I swear it works It made such a difference for me It just takes training I'm sure you're fast because of all of the 15 years but I bet this will take you up a notch just a thought in your copious free time. 🤭🫂
I use speech to text and it makes mistakes sorry🤦
The supreme court’s limiting power of the lower courts flies in the face of what Roberts said about a month ago that basically trump etc had to listen to the lower courts and now seems to have changed his mind hmmm wonder what happened there.
Exactly. There’s such inconsistency—Roberts just emphasized the importance of following lower court rulings, yet here the majority curtails their power to issue nationwide injunctions. It’s hard not to see this as ideologically driven rather than principled.
I have to say I read this last night before going to sleep and woke up with such a panic in my chest. That said, my question in light of the ruling regarding injunctions and federal court reach is this; what are the concerns regarding precedent? Since our legal system is a living breathing changing body of laws and codes, the SCOTUS ruling that basically amputates federal courts’ voice on matters that have broader application, such as constitutional guarantees, than merely the plaintiffs in a particular case, seems itself to gag future federal courts. When Barrett said there was no historical precedent, is this factual, and will it extend to other types of federal court cases that rely on precedent or creating precedent?
In fact, that may lead to a second question; how is precedent created?
I hope my question is clear and apologize if it is other.
Colleen, thank you for this deeply thoughtful comment—and your question is absolutely clear (and incredibly important).
You're exactly right to flag the issue of precedent. The Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA does more than just limit relief to named plaintiffs—it undercuts the ability of federal courts to issue rulings that have broad, systemic effect even when constitutional rights are at stake. That’s terrifying.
To your first question: yes, Justice Barrett claimed there’s no historical precedent for nationwide injunctions—but many legal scholars disagree. Courts have long issued broad injunctive relief when systemic harm is proven, especially in civil rights cases. What this ruling does is create a much more cramped vision of judicial power—essentially saying, “Even if a law is unconstitutional, courts can only protect the people who sued.” That’s not how we’ve historically treated constitutional rights, and it opens the door to wildly inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
As for precedent more broadly: it’s created when courts—especially appellate courts—decide a legal question and publish an opinion. Lower courts are then expected to follow those decisions. But if courts can no longer issue broad rulings that impact people beyond the immediate parties, the power to set precedent could become much more fractured and limited.
In short: your instinct is right. This ruling isn’t just about one immigration order. It’s about reshaping the judiciary’s role in safeguarding rights. And that should worry all of us. Thank you again for raising it.
So now he can create an executive order for anything he wants and the only way to stop it is for an individual to go to court or does it mean a group of people can do a class action too More clarification please (You did not hear the exasperation in my voice as I said that but it's there in buckets)
I definitely heard the exasperation—because I feel it too.
Here’s the bottom line: after Trump v. CASA, if a president issues an unconstitutional executive order, lower courts can still block it—but only for the people or groups who are plaintiffs in that specific case. That means no more nationwide injunctions (unless and until the Supreme Court weighs in).
So yes, you’re right: if an executive order violates your rights, you or your group need to sue. And unless you bring a class action (which takes time and is procedurally complex), the court’s order won’t protect anyone else—even if the same harm is happening to thousands of people.
It’s a massive shift in how courts can respond to unlawful government action. And it creates a dangerous game of whack-a-mole, where every new abuse has to be fought one lawsuit at a time. You're absolutely right to want clarification—and to be outraged.
So here's a weird question or maybe not Can a judge on the supreme Court be disbarred and how would that affect things?
Thank you so much for the detail and This is the best I can do until I meet you in person 🫂😔
I posed a question to a friend... imagine if a president cited data that most gun violence is committed by men, so she issued a public-health emergency executive order banning men from owning guns, and required DOJ to buy back guns from men for $1 each, since with 300 million used guns on the market, fair-market-value of used guns would be minimal. And for men to claim this violated the 2nd ammendment, each man had to individually sue in federal court.
On that issue, he thought a single Federal Judge should be able to put a stay on what he viewed as an obvious violation of the constitution. Interesting how constitutional rights are only important if they affect you.