The Radical Left's New Lawfare Tactic
to destroy Pres. Trump and his administration
The Supreme Court's ruling to curb universal injunctions, which let individual judges block executive orders and proclamations, is viewed as a win for the Trump administration, giving it significantly more leeway to enforce its policies.
The radical left is pretty much having a meltdown. The Huffington Post’s headline reads: “SCATHING SCOTUS DISSENTS - 'LAWLESSNESS WILL FLOURISH'“ Unfortunately, for them, the quote is a fake-out. It is a phrase cut from a whole paragraph in the dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
What Jackson actually wrote was:
“I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish, and from there, it is not difficult to predict how this all ends,”
-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
That quote is bad enough without Huffington Post embellishing it.
Entirely on target, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in an unusually aggressive tone, responded with this statement:
"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
-Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett
Sounds like civil war is breaking out among the ranks of the Supremes…
But seriously, and this is serious.
The Trump administration's decision to defend itself against a Federal injunction, not based on a technical analysis of birthright citizenship arguments but rather on the use of injunctions by federal judges to block executive authority, was a brilliant move. Essentially, the White House won the case on the merits of injunctive relief - as the US Constitution does not confer a right to impose global injunctions on the executive branch to the Federal courts, while also securing a reprieve on the issue of birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, struck down all of the roughly 340 national injunctions that are currently being litigated in the courts. They put a stop to the use of this particular lawfare tactic to block the executive branch from acting, and to tie up the resources of the Justice Department, which could otherwise be used more productively to prosecute criminals.
One would like to think that this may be one of the most important Supreme Court decisions handed down to the Trump administration. As of mid-May 2025, judges have issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s policies in his second term. Another 300 suits were pending. These are all now effectively dismissed. Paving the way for an even more muscular presidency.
Believe them when they tell you what they plan to do.
However, this skirmish doesn’t end here. NPR laid out the radical left’s new plan to disassemble Trump’s executive orders. To quote NPR:
"Next up, class action lawsuits
"The central front in litigation against the federal government is going to shift from universal injunctions to class actions," Bray <law professor at the University of Notre Dame> says, because such actions could afford protection to more than just an individual plaintiff.
Morley <professor at Florida State University College of Law> believes that as a result, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, also known simply as Rule 23, which refers to a legal process for certifying a class action lawsuit in federal court, will be "the next major battleground."
In addition to class actions, he says we're likely to see increased use of state plaintiff suits – where a state sues to protect its own interests or its residents – along with organizational standing, which allows groups to sue on their own behalf if directly harmed, and associational standing, which lets organizations sue on behalf of their members if certain conditions are met.
"Despite the ruling today, there are other procedural mechanisms the plaintiffs have already begun to use... to get effectively universal relief," he says. "[T]hese are the next frontiers that the Court's ruling today is going to push these disputes to."
When the progressives lay out their next lawfare strategy, believe them.
The issue of birthright citizenship is not going away. Therefore, numerous class-action lawsuits are being quickly filed.
Let’s keep in mind the recent Supreme Court Case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump (the pseudonym A.A.R.P. is a set of initials chosen to protect the individual's identity in court filings). This was a 2025 class action lawsuit challenging the summary removal of Venezuelan nationals from U.S. immigration custody under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), following a presidential proclamation by Donald J. Trump. The case was brought on behalf of a proposed class of Venezuelan men, many of whom were alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, who had been detained in the United States (ref. 1,2,3).
The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sought emergency injunctive relief to prevent imminent deportation to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, arguing that they were entitled to due process and an opportunity to contest their removal via habeas corpus, as required by previous Supreme Court precedent (J.G.G. v. Trump).
The Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that the Court granted an injunction, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit was instructed to 1) Address all preliminary injunction factors, including the likelihood of success on the merits of the detainees’ habeas claims that the AEA did not authorize their removal, and 2) Determine what notice and due process protections were required for the putative class.
This case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s readiness to grant provisional relief to entire classes in urgent immigration cases. But more importantly, it also illustrates an evolving judicial approach to class action injunctions amid recent limitations on nationwide injunctions outside the class action framework.
Following the Supreme Court's June 2025 decision, which limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions but did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order, immigrant rights groups quickly adjusted their legal strategy. Within hours of the ruling, organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and others filed a new nationwide class action lawsuit. Many of these lawsuits aim to not only stop Trump’s deportation of children born to illegal immigrants in this country, but also to stop the deportation of their parents and families as well.
Other organizations are quickly revising their multitude of lawsuits to fit the class action framework and resubmitting them to federal courts. NPR and other mainstream media outlets quickly jumped onto the class-action lawsuit cheerleading squad.
So now the next battle rages on. They lost at the ballot box, but the radical left and its deep state allies will continue to try to destroy President Trump and his administration in the courts.
To conclude, this ain’t over till it’s over. Winning this battle is not the same as winning the war.
<Somehow this song seems appropriate>
Boy that song took me back to my childhood. Good one Doctor M! So disappointing that these groups can’t funnel their energies into doing good for this nation instead of being bleeding hearts for illegals.
Isn’t ACL funded by US Government? Cut the funding! The financial community sees President Trumps policies as positives for the growth of our economy. Class actions takes time to move through the courts! Desperation on the part of the naysayers!