Tom Homan

General, when were the first universal injunctions used?

General, when were the first universal injunctions used?

So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.

So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.

So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions.

Yeah, I think... What's interesting about this to me is also the fact that this is really very important for progressives because this is sort of one of the last levers they have left is these courts. They have no control in the Hill. You know, the party's in disarray. So they've really relied on the courts to sort of do their, do what they want. And as you pointed out, this is not just a Trump.

Yeah, I think... What's interesting about this to me is also the fact that this is really very important for progressives because this is sort of one of the last levers they have left is these courts. They have no control in the Hill. You know, the party's in disarray. So they've really relied on the courts to sort of do their, do what they want. And as you pointed out, this is not just a Trump.

Yeah, I think... What's interesting about this to me is also the fact that this is really very important for progressives because this is sort of one of the last levers they have left is these courts. They have no control in the Hill. You know, the party's in disarray. So they've really relied on the courts to sort of do their, do what they want. And as you pointed out, this is not just a Trump.

Trump isn't the first president, I'll put it this way, who doesn't like presidential, doesn't like these injunctions. So it's not just like this sort of, every executive doesn't like the fact that anybody messes with what they're trying to do, let alone sort of local courts. So, yeah. It is being framed narrowly, as you say, about this sort of what seems like a procedural question.

Trump isn't the first president, I'll put it this way, who doesn't like presidential, doesn't like these injunctions. So it's not just like this sort of, every executive doesn't like the fact that anybody messes with what they're trying to do, let alone sort of local courts. So, yeah. It is being framed narrowly, as you say, about this sort of what seems like a procedural question.

Trump isn't the first president, I'll put it this way, who doesn't like presidential, doesn't like these injunctions. So it's not just like this sort of, every executive doesn't like the fact that anybody messes with what they're trying to do, let alone sort of local courts. So, yeah. It is being framed narrowly, as you say, about this sort of what seems like a procedural question.

And it'll be interesting to see when they get to the substance of it, if they ever do get to the substance of it, how they rule. Because that's a constitutional case that I think would be a lot harder for the president to make.

And it'll be interesting to see when they get to the substance of it, if they ever do get to the substance of it, how they rule. Because that's a constitutional case that I think would be a lot harder for the president to make.

And it'll be interesting to see when they get to the substance of it, if they ever do get to the substance of it, how they rule. Because that's a constitutional case that I think would be a lot harder for the president to make.

Oh, absolutely. There's no question. I mean – and you made a really important point there, which is part of how this has gone is that they're shopping. They're judge shopping, right? The Democrats and the progressives, they go around and they find judges who they know are sympathetic to their cases. And so that's part of it. And the argument is –

Oh, absolutely. There's no question. I mean – and you made a really important point there, which is part of how this has gone is that they're shopping. They're judge shopping, right? The Democrats and the progressives, they go around and they find judges who they know are sympathetic to their cases. And so that's part of it. And the argument is –

Oh, absolutely. There's no question. I mean – and you made a really important point there, which is part of how this has gone is that they're shopping. They're judge shopping, right? The Democrats and the progressives, they go around and they find judges who they know are sympathetic to their cases. And so that's part of it. And the argument is –

that the administration is making is look, these judges can only issue injunctions for the people who come before them. They can't make these blanket statements nationwide. And that would also curtail this effort that the way the Democrats have found to effectively use the courts to thwart Trump's agenda nationally. And so it is a very important case.

that the administration is making is look, these judges can only issue injunctions for the people who come before them. They can't make these blanket statements nationwide. And that would also curtail this effort that the way the Democrats have found to effectively use the courts to thwart Trump's agenda nationally. And so it is a very important case.

that the administration is making is look, these judges can only issue injunctions for the people who come before them. They can't make these blanket statements nationwide. And that would also curtail this effort that the way the Democrats have found to effectively use the courts to thwart Trump's agenda nationally. And so it is a very important case.