Legal expert explains Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision this summer that could affect how courts and presidents interact for decades to come. The ruling limits the use of nationwide injunctions, a powerful tool lower courts have often used to halt federal policies.

To help explain the decision and its implications, Lashandra Peoples-Johnson from Johnson Cephas Law joined Dave Davis for an interview.

Q: Broadly, what is this decision and why does it matter?

"So the decision is basically that courts need to pretty much stay in their lane. They need to make decisions based on the parties before them and not try to change national policy by issuing these injunctions that affect the whole."

Q: So, in effect, this is the Supreme Court telling courts to stay in their lanes?

"OK, so pretty much lower courts for a while have been issuing these nationwide injunctions that go beyond their geographical jurisdiction and an injunction is pretty much a court order that says that you have to stop or start something. And this is very important. It's a very important tool that judges have as it can prevent injustices. They can preserve the status quo. And so it's a very powerful tool to have."

Q: We’ve seen this play out with immigration policy, where courts ordered deportations stopped. Is that what we’re talking about here?

"Yes, so pretty much the parties have to have standing to be able to request relief beyond what their injuries are."

Q: What does it mean when we say a court’s powers are limited?

"So lower courts have broad equitable power. However, it's not unlimited. There are limitations as to what they can do, and that's based on the jurisdiction they are in."

Q: This seems to get into the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. How does that play out here?

"Yeah. And those are two of the criticisms from the Supreme Court. If you look at two recent court cases. So you have the Department of Homeland Security vs New York. And then you also have the United States vs Texas and that is where the courts criticize the lower courts for doing these injunctions.

"So, it's exactly separation of power, meaning by them issuing these nationwide injunctions, does it tie the hands of the legislature to be able to enact policy? And then you also have these federalism concerns, which means if a court makes a decision that affects national policy, is that OK, especially if other courts would make a different decision?"

Q: What are some of the long-term consequences of this decision?

"So some of the criticisms that you have that people say is that these are needed, that sometimes these nationwide injunctions are needed to prevent irreparable harm.

"What they mean is that if the government does something and a court determines that it's unlawful, then if they limit it to just that party, then it makes it where other people can also express and feel this irreparable harm, even though courts have already determined that this action is unlawful."

Q: Looking ahead, what can we expect from the Supreme Court on this issue?

"We will see the Supreme Court telling these lower courts that they have to make decisions based on the parties in front of them and not decisions that will affect national policy that will impact the nation."