Carl Cannon

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case. Only a class, only by a class. Can I hear the rest of his answer? A Rule 23 class action. And then the more fundamental point as to all those Supreme Court decisions you referred to. So what do we do temporarily?

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case. Only a class, only by a class. Can I hear the rest of his answer? A Rule 23 class action. And then the more fundamental point as to all those Supreme Court decisions you referred to. So what do we do temporarily?

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case. Only a class, only by a class. Can I hear the rest of his answer? A Rule 23 class action. And then the more fundamental point as to all those Supreme Court decisions you referred to. So what do we do temporarily?

Temporarily, the court may issue the lower courts may issue injunctions that remediate the injuries to the plaintiffs that appear before them.

Temporarily, the court may issue the lower courts may issue injunctions that remediate the injuries to the plaintiffs that appear before them.

Temporarily, the court may issue the lower courts may issue injunctions that remediate the injuries to the plaintiffs that appear before them.

We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wurtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong.

We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wurtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong.

We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wurtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. There's a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the court's opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it's profoundly wrong.

So when the court is considered to address this, it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs of appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.

So when the court is considered to address this, it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs of appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.

So when the court is considered to address this, it is consistently said you have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs of appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.

That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited, very rare. Even in the 1960s, it really exploded in 2007. In our petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.

That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited, very rare. Even in the 1960s, it really exploded in 2007. In our petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.

That's exactly correct. And in fact, those are very limited, very rare. Even in the 1960s, it really exploded in 2007. In our petition in Summers against Earth Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.

Well, Elena Kagan said an interesting thing. I was listening to the oral arguments. You can't watch it, but you can listen, right? On C-SPAN. Yeah. And she said, well, she said, well, this executive order, and she's talking about Trump rescinding birthright citizenship. She said, it's just wrong. It's unconstitutional. She sort of said it like she thought the other justices would agree with it.

Well, Elena Kagan said an interesting thing. I was listening to the oral arguments. You can't watch it, but you can listen, right? On C-SPAN. Yeah. And she said, well, she said, well, this executive order, and she's talking about Trump rescinding birthright citizenship. She said, it's just wrong. It's unconstitutional. She sort of said it like she thought the other justices would agree with it.

Well, Elena Kagan said an interesting thing. I was listening to the oral arguments. You can't watch it, but you can listen, right? On C-SPAN. Yeah. And she said, well, she said, well, this executive order, and she's talking about Trump rescinding birthright citizenship. She said, it's just wrong. It's unconstitutional. She sort of said it like she thought the other justices would agree with it.

That's an obvious thing. And then she said, so what's our remedy? So what she's trying to do is remind the judge's Mr. Ryan, her colleagues, probably the two you mentioned, Megan, this is not just about it's not a law school exercise. It's just not about all these, you know, Democratic judges around the country doing various things to thwart Trump. It's about this case, birthright citizenship.

That's an obvious thing. And then she said, so what's our remedy? So what she's trying to do is remind the judge's Mr. Ryan, her colleagues, probably the two you mentioned, Megan, this is not just about it's not a law school exercise. It's just not about all these, you know, Democratic judges around the country doing various things to thwart Trump. It's about this case, birthright citizenship.