Paul J. Larkin
We’ve all imagined what we would do if we were king for a day. Even federal judges. Remember the joke, “Question: What’s the difference between God and a federal judge? Answer: God knows that he’s not a federal judge.” Well, for some federal judges, that’s no joke; they genuinely don’t know the difference.

President Donald Trump has decided (among other things) to enforce federal immigration laws and remake the administrative state. Not everyone is happy. Numerous lawsuits—almost more than “the stars of the heaven” or “the sand which is upon the sea shore”—have been filed to slow or halt some of his policies and practices. So far, he has had some successes and some failures, but we are still in the early innings, with more to play.

Consider a current, trendy practice that some federal district court judges have applied with alacrity: issuing so-called “nationwide injunctions” outside the context of a properly certified nationwide class action. Those orders bar the President from implementing a law or policy in a certain manner not only against the plaintiff who won his or her lawsuit, but against everyone else, whether in this nation or elsewhere, even though nonparties are, by definition, strangers to the litigation that gave rise to the injunction. Some judges have even issued those injunctions at the earliest possible stage of a case: when a plaintiff asks a judge to enter a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the federal government (usually at 4:55 pm on a Friday) because his client not only is likely to prevail when the judge finally resolves the case, but also needs immediate injunctive relief to avoid the return of Vigo the Carpathian before the government can even be advised that there’s a lawsuit afoot. It’s the legal version of asking a parent for help with a term paper due that day just before leaving for the school bus.  » Read More
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/government-injunction