The Universal injunction scam

 Matt Margolis:

...

Questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.

"Mr. Shumate, what's a universal injunction?" Kennedy asked.

Shumate explained, "Senator, a universal injunction is an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case but applies nationwide or in some cases universally."

Kennedy pressed further, asking, "What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?"

"I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator," Shumate admitted.

"There is no statutory basis, is there?" Kennedy reiterated.

"No, Senator," Shumate confirmed.

Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.

"Can you name me that case?" he asked.

"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate responded.

"There isn't one, is there?" Kennedy pressed.

"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate repeated.

Kennedy then laid out the fundamental issue: "You have a plaintiff and a defendant, and the plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal court. The judge has jurisdiction over those parties. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else outside of that courtroom?"

"Uh, it shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time," Shumate admitted. "I think on the theory that courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it nationwide so that all non-parties are protected."

"I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action," Kennedy countered.

"That's correct, Senator," Shumate agreed.

Kennedy pointed out that instead of filing class-action suits, plaintiffs often seek universal injunctions, which have no legal foundation.

"Does this encourage forum shopping?" he asked.

"Yes, Senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge who will enjoin a single policy nationwide," Shumate said. "If you have five lawsuits, only one of those cases needs to be successful."

Kennedy then turned to historical precedent.

"Universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. Did this exist in common law courts in England?" he asked.

"I don't believe so, Senator," Shumate responded, citing Supreme Court precedent that equitable relief was traditionally limited to the parties in a case.
...

Kennedy then pointed out that judges issued only about 27 universal injunctions in the entire 20th century.

"But 86 of them were issued against President Trump in his first term. Is that correct?" Kennedy asked.

"I don't know the specific number, but it was a high number," Shumate conceded.

"And so far in President Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not?" Kennedy continued.
...

I think Trump should take these cases to the Supreme Court and challenge the constitutionality of the Universal Injunctions.  Kennedy makes a good case about the unfairness of this form of injunctions.  The cases against Trump come part of an irrational hatred of him and a pursuit of questionable means to thwart his administration.