President Donald Trump got big wins last night in the North Carolina special elections, and today woke up to yet another win from a federal judge.
Ag Barr issued a warning to Democrats (and Republicans) about using the courts and nationwide injunctions to interfere with the American democracy. Shortly after the warning, a judge in California issued another nationwide injunction over President Trump’s new asylum rules.
It sure was a slap in the face and President Trump quickly appealed the decision. Today he found out that he won and a federal judge just lifted the nationwide injunction.
Politico reported that acting at the request of Trump’s administration, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay on Tuesday night that put on hold the injunction issued by San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar.
The temporary stop implemented while the appeals court considers a longer stay essentially restores the legal situation that existed prior to this week, with Trump’s policy blocked only in the Ninth Circuit, which includes the border regions of California and Arizona.
That allowed Trump’s administration to implement the new policy in Texas and New Mexico, barring rulings from other courts as litigation over the issue ricochets through various courts the administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to allow officials to continue the new policy as announced in July. The high court has yet to rule on that request.
Here is part of the overturned ruling: “The need to provide complete relief to the Plaintiffs, standing alone, is sufficient reason for the re-issuance of the nationwide injunction. In addition to that factor, however, three other factors support such relief.”
“First, a nationwide injunction is supported by the need to maintain uniform immigration policy. See East Bay II, 932 F.3d at 779 (collecting cases and stating that “[i]n immigration matters, we have consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis”);” The ruling continues.
“CONCLUSION While nationwide injunctions are not the “general rule,” they are appropriate “where such breadth [is] necessary to remedy a plaintiff’s harm.” at *2. This is such a case. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court grants the Organizations’ motion to restore the nationwide scope of the injunction.”
