John Ashbrook

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go. Let's go. Let's call Pete. Pete, where you at? Let's call DJT and see if he's got something for you.

Let's go. Let's go. Let's call Pete. Pete, where you at? Let's call DJT and see if he's got something for you.

Let's go. Let's go. Let's call Pete. Pete, where you at? Let's call DJT and see if he's got something for you.

Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.

Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.

Since January 20th, district courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party.

They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.

They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.

They transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority, and they create a host of practical problems. Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case.

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case.

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case.

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 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 appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.