2026 Judicial Rulings Thread

[UNI88]

I think it's fair to question SCOTUS:

It seems that they are overturning a larger percentage of lower court rulings unfavorable to the current administration than previously. Why is that? Are the lower courts misinterpreting the law? Or is SCOTUS?

Why they're using shadow docket rulings more than in the past. Those have little to no explanation of why and they give the trump regime a lot of leeway to to continue their modus operandi while the case continues.

Then let's have that discussion. Start bringing up the cases in question and we can go through them. What are the details?

Is SCOTUS:

• Changing equitable doctrine without strong historical support (trump vs CASA)?
• Narrowing old precedent without forthrightly overruling it?
• Treating similar plaintiffs differently depending on subject matter?
• Applying the same scrutiny to executive power now as it did in previous administrations?

Trump v. CASA is a good starting point.

On the shadow docket:
Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker — Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

The Trump administration has prevailed in the vast majority of its requests for emergency action, as the data below shows. These rulings have allowed administration policies to move forward after lower courts had found that the administration’s actions were likely illegal. While the Court’s shadow docket decisions are not a final ruling on the legal merits, there is still significant impact on the people affected while the case remains pending, which is why the lower courts had issued their orders in the first place. Among other things, the Court’s shadow docket rulings have led to mass firings of civil servants, the defunding of scientific research, and racial profiling in immigration sweeps.

The lack of reasoning in most shadow docket rulings also leaves lower courts with little guidance about how to address similar issues in other cases.

A clear pattern has emerged: The Court is using the shadow docket to quickly and dramatically expand executive power. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”
...
Since January 20, 2025, the Supreme Court has issued 25 decisions on the shadow docket concerning administration actions.

• 20 ruled for the administration at least partially
• 5 ruled against the administration
• 7 were not accompanied by any written explanation (most other rulings included only brief analysis, sometimes as short as a sentence)

Two shadow docket applications are currently pending.

[GannonFan]

Reading comprehension is critical in life. Again, you said I led with insults. My literal first words (the leading part) in my initial post were "What are they hypocritical and radical about? ". Asking what you meant by those words is hardly insulting. You're hyper-defense to me just asking that question is well noted. As for not being interested in discussion, you posting on a message board where the main focus is discussion is rather weird. If all you wanted to do was shout into the wind you could've done that just as easily by opening a window in your house and shouting out of it. The Trump v United States did not in anyway prevent investigation or prosecution of Trump or any other President - it simply laid out the groundwork on how to do that and left it to the lower courts to adjudicate the cases that were being sped up to get to the SCOTUS. Again, reading is fundamental, I highly advise you to exercise that skill, SCOTUS rulings are quite enjoyable to read.

Read your first two sentences together. The 2nd renders the first rhetorical. You got caught and aren’t honest enough to admit. Oh well. Won’t be the first time.

Your immunity arguments are equally shallow. It wasn’t an originalist and supported initial intent. The results are a presidency that is in constant violation of the laws with zero repercussions. Yet here you are arguing that one man is truly above the law. Neither the constitution or any reasonable American supports this.

Dude, whatever meds you have you should be taking them. I asked you what was hypocritical and radical and said you weren't backing up those significant claims with anything. That's not an insult, that's an invitation to, again, back up your claims. I supposed maybe it is an insult if you truly have nothing to back up those claims. I've never claimed anyone is above the law, that's you making up something again with nothing to back it up. There are cases in progress and more should be brought for every transgression. That's what the courts are for, use them.

[GannonFan]

Then let's have that discussion. Start bringing up the cases in question and we can go through them. What are the details?

Is SCOTUS:

• Changing equitable doctrine without strong historical support (trump vs CASA)?
• Narrowing old precedent without forthrightly overruling it?
• Treating similar plaintiffs differently depending on subject matter?
• Applying the same scrutiny to executive power now as it did in previous administrations?

Trump v. CASA is a good starting point.

On the shadow docket:
Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker — Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

The Trump administration has prevailed in the vast majority of its requests for emergency action, as the data below shows. These rulings have allowed administration policies to move forward after lower courts had found that the administration’s actions were likely illegal. While the Court’s shadow docket decisions are not a final ruling on the legal merits, there is still significant impact on the people affected while the case remains pending, which is why the lower courts had issued their orders in the first place. Among other things, the Court’s shadow docket rulings have led to mass firings of civil servants, the defunding of scientific research, and racial profiling in immigration sweeps.

The lack of reasoning in most shadow docket rulings also leaves lower courts with little guidance about how to address similar issues in other cases.

A clear pattern has emerged: The Court is using the shadow docket to quickly and dramatically expand executive power. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”
...
Since January 20, 2025, the Supreme Court has issued 25 decisions on the shadow docket concerning administration actions.

• 20 ruled for the administration at least partially
• 5 ruled against the administration
• 7 were not accompanied by any written explanation (most other rulings included only brief analysis, sometimes as short as a sentence)

Two shadow docket applications are currently pending.

I think you're misreading Trump v CASA. What it did was prevented lower courts from, on their own, deciding that a case brought before them required universal relief to be decided, rather than just limiting that relief to the parties involved in the lawsuit. That's not crazy, and it's in response to a very recent trend of lower courts being used to block any and all executive actions everywhere just by finding a pliable lower court. That's a really recent phenomenon and SCOTUS wanted to clean that up. It's telling, that even in the decision, SCOTUS then went on to lay out exactly what path plaintiffs, not courts, could take to pursue the universal relief that just recently courts had been taking on their own to grant, i.e. SCOTUS laid out the path of class action claims. Not surprisingly, many plaintiffs, who in these consolidated cases had been granted complete relief relative to the parties joining with the plaintiffs, then did file class action law suits tailored to ask for, and in some cases granted, the more universal relief. SCOTUS put guardrails in place to stop the recent trend of using the lower courts, anyone they could find, to block any and all executive actions while also providing the mechanism to allow for universal relief where it was justified.

That doesn't fit into a headline very easily, hence the very disparate views of what was actually decided.

[UNI88]

Is SCOTUS:

• Changing equitable doctrine without strong historical support (trump vs CASA)?
• Narrowing old precedent without forthrightly overruling it?
• Treating similar plaintiffs differently depending on subject matter?
• Applying the same scrutiny to executive power now as it did in previous administrations?

Trump v. CASA is a good starting point.

On the shadow docket:
Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker — Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

I think you're misreading Trump v CASA. What it did was prevented lower courts from, on their own, deciding that a case brought before them required universal relief to be decided, rather than just limiting that relief to the parties involved in the lawsuit. That's not crazy, and it's in response to a very recent trend of lower courts being used to block any and all executive actions everywhere just by finding a pliable lower court. That's a really recent phenomenon and SCOTUS wanted to clean that up. It's telling, that even in the decision, SCOTUS then went on to lay out exactly what path plaintiffs, not courts, could take to pursue the universal relief that just recently courts had been taking on their own to grant, i.e. SCOTUS laid out the path of class action claims. Not surprisingly, many plaintiffs, who in these consolidated cases had been granted complete relief relative to the parties joining with the plaintiffs, then did file class action law suits tailored to ask for, and in some cases granted, the more universal relief. SCOTUS put guardrails in place to stop the recent trend of using the lower courts, anyone they could find, to block any and all executive actions while also providing the mechanism to allow for universal relief where it was justified.

That doesn't fit into a headline very easily, hence the very disparate views of what was actually decided.

Even if limiting nationwide injunctions is defensible, it’s worth asking whether the Court’s historical account fully supports that limitation, and whether the practical consequences meaningfully change how constitutional challenges operate.

Another concern is that restricting relief to the parties before the court can create a patchwork where a law or executive order is allowed in some states but blocked in others. That inconsistency can confuse agencies, produce uneven treatment of citizens, and prolong constitutional harms—the very problem nationwide injunctions were designed to prevent.

[BDKJMU]

I think you're misreading Trump v CASA. What it did was prevented lower courts from, on their own, deciding that a case brought before them required universal relief to be decided, rather than just limiting that relief to the parties involved in the lawsuit. That's not crazy, and it's in response to a very recent trend of lower courts being used to block any and all executive actions everywhere just by finding a pliable lower court. That's a really recent phenomenon and SCOTUS wanted to clean that up. It's telling, that even in the decision, SCOTUS then went on to lay out exactly what path plaintiffs, not courts, could take to pursue the universal relief that just recently courts had been taking on their own to grant, i.e. SCOTUS laid out the path of class action claims. Not surprisingly, many plaintiffs, who in these consolidated cases had been granted complete relief relative to the parties joining with the plaintiffs, then did file class action law suits tailored to ask for, and in some cases granted, the more universal relief. SCOTUS put guardrails in place to stop the recent trend of using the lower courts, anyone they could find, to block any and all executive actions while also providing the mechanism to allow for universal relief where it was justified.

That doesn't fit into a headline very easily, hence the very disparate views of what was actually decided.

Even if limiting nationwide injunctions is defensible, it’s worth asking whether the Court’s historical account fully supports that limitation, and whether the practical consequences meaningfully change how constitutional challenges operate.

Another concern is that restricting relief to the parties before the court can create a patchwork where a law or executive order is allowed in some states but blocked in others. That inconsistency can confuse agencies, produce uneven treatment of citizens, and prolong constitutional harms—the very problem nationwide injunctions were designed to prevent.

You‘re advocating for just one judge shopped low level district court judge, of which there are 677 positions, to be able to issue nationwide injunctions. They shouldn‘t have that type of power.

[GannonFan]

Even if limiting nationwide injunctions is defensible, it’s worth asking whether the Court’s historical account fully supports that limitation, and whether the practical consequences meaningfully change how constitutional challenges operate.

Another concern is that restricting relief to the parties before the court can create a patchwork where a law or executive order is allowed in some states but blocked in others. That inconsistency can confuse agencies, produce uneven treatment of citizens, and prolong constitutional harms—the very problem nationwide injunctions were designed to prevent.

You‘re advocating for just one judge shopped low level district court judge, of which there are 677 positions, to be able to issue nationwide injunctions. They shouldn‘t have that type of power.

That was the direction of Justice Barrett's particular reply to Justice Jackson...

Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary

This isn't like the question of lower court nationwide injunctions has been a long running issue in the country. Prior to this century, they were few and far between, and didn't even really exist in the 1800's. They are certainly a much more recent (last 25 years) phenomenon, and in the vast majority, included judges of an opposing political party restricting the executive from the other political party. SCOTUS was right in trying to lay out a framework on how to adjudicate them going forward without closing the door on that discussion.

[UNI88]

Even if limiting nationwide injunctions is defensible, it’s worth asking whether the Court’s historical account fully supports that limitation, and whether the practical consequences meaningfully change how constitutional challenges operate.

Another concern is that restricting relief to the parties before the court can create a patchwork where a law or executive order is allowed in some states but blocked in others. That inconsistency can confuse agencies, produce uneven treatment of citizens, and prolong constitutional harms—the very problem nationwide injunctions were designed to prevent.

You‘re advocating for just one judge shopped low level district court judge, of which there are 677 positions, to be able to issue nationwide injunctions. They shouldn‘t have that type of power.

And the administration is free to appeal all the way to SCOTUS. The harm from patchwork implementation of a law/executive order is greater than that from a nationwide hold until the case runs through the process.

Did you oppose these nationwide bans when Republicans used them against biden from 2021-2024?

At least I try to be consistent.

[BDKJMU]

You‘re advocating for just one judge shopped low level district court judge, of which there are 677 positions, to be able to issue nationwide injunctions. They shouldn‘t have that type of power.

And the administration is free to appeal all the way to SCOTUS. The harm from patchwork implementation of a law/executive order is greater than that from a nationwide hold until the case runs through the process.

Did you oppose these nationwide bans when Republicans used them against biden from 2021-2024?

At least I try to be consistent.

In your opinion. I believe the opposite. The harm from lone, low level, judge shopped district court judges, to be able to repeatedly issue nationwide injunctions styming POTUS actions, yet to continually have there rulings overturned by Circuit Appellate and or SCOTUS, is far more harmful. It is a tool the left uses to stymie the POTUS agenda, to run out the clock so to speak, by filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit with friendly donk appointed judges, knowing the bulk that receive injunctions will be eventually overturned. They’re playing run out the clock.

R‘s only did it in response to donks doing it during Trump 1. Both sides were doing it a a certain level going back to GWB. The donks in the last 13 months under Trump II have taken it to a whole new level, making unprecedented use of it.

[kalm]

Read your first two sentences together. The 2nd renders the first rhetorical. You got caught and aren’t honest enough to admit. Oh well. Won’t be the first time.

Your immunity arguments are equally shallow. It wasn’t an originalist and supported initial intent. The results are a presidency that is in constant violation of the laws with zero repercussions. Yet here you are arguing that one man is truly above the law. Neither the constitution or any reasonable American supports this.

Dude, whatever meds you have you should be taking them. I asked you what was hypocritical and radical and said you weren't backing up those significant claims with anything. That's not an insult, that's an invitation to, again, back up your claims. I supposed maybe it is an insult if you truly have nothing to back up those claims. I've never claimed anyone is above the law, that's you making up something again with nothing to back it up. There are cases in progress and more should be brought for every transgression. That's what the courts are for, use them.

Dude, because your long winded arguments become tedious to wade through. You’re so twisted up you’ve lost sight of the reality of what’s been granted and what’s literally occurring as a result of the ruling. I know you won’t take it from me but there’s a whole host of highly qualified constitutional law experts, former judges, etc. out there who disagree strongly with your assessment. But I’m sure you’ve figured out what they haven’t.

[kalm]

Dude, whatever meds you have you should be taking them. I asked you what was hypocritical and radical and said you weren't backing up those significant claims with anything. That's not an insult, that's an invitation to, again, back up your claims. I supposed maybe it is an insult if you truly have nothing to back up those claims. I've never claimed anyone is above the law, that's you making up something again with nothing to back it up. There are cases in progress and more should be brought for every transgression. That's what the courts are for, use them.

Dude, because your long winded arguments become tedious to wade through. You’re so twisted up you’ve lost sight of the reality of what’s been granted and what’s literally occurring as a result of the ruling. I know you won’t take it from me but there’s a whole host of highly qualified constitutional law experts, former judges, etc. out there who disagree strongly with your assessment. But I’m sure you’ve figured out what they haven’t.

Start with whether the constitution grants immunity to Congress but omits POTUS in the same way.

[UNI88]

And the administration is free to appeal all the way to SCOTUS. The harm from patchwork implementation of a law/executive order is greater than that from a nationwide hold until the case runs through the process.

Did you oppose these nationwide bans when Republicans used them against biden from 2021-2024?

At least I try to be consistent.

In your opinion. I believe the opposite. The harm from lone, low level, judge shopped district court judges, to be able to repeatedly issue nationwide injunctions styming POTUS actions, yet to continually have there rulings overturned by Circuit Appellate and or SCOTUS, is far more harmful. It is a tool the left uses to stymie the POTUS agenda, to run out the clock so to speak, by filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit with friendly donk appointed judges, knowing the bulk that receive injunctions will be eventually overturned. They’re playing run out the clock.

R‘s only did it in response to donks doing it during Trump 1. Both sides were doing it a a certain level going back to GWB. The donks in the last 13 months under Trump II have taken it to a whole new level, making unprecedented use of it.

That's one way to look at it. Another, just as valid, is that trump has taken signing illegal executive orders and pushing illegal policies/actions to a whole new level and state and local governments, organizations and citizens are responding by challenging the illegal orders and policies/actions in court.

I can't imagine why lawsuits tend to get filed when you stomp all over the Constitution.

[GannonFan]

You‘re advocating for just one judge shopped low level district court judge, of which there are 677 positions, to be able to issue nationwide injunctions. They shouldn‘t have that type of power.

And the administration is free to appeal all the way to SCOTUS. The harm from patchwork implementation of a law/executive order is greater than that from a nationwide hold until the case runs through the process.

Did you oppose these nationwide bans when Republicans used them against biden from 2021-2024?

At least I try to be consistent.

I think it's also important to note that the Trump v CASA ruling literally gave the roadmap of how to get universal relief that was being sought, but just without the shortcut method that was being employed by the judge shopping. Class action lawsuits have been and still are that very vehicle to gain the universal relief if that relief is needed and warranted. Sure, it's more work to get that, but for the real obvious and easy ones that's exactly what plaintiffs did in the immediate wake of the CASA ruling - they just refiled what they had in the class action format and the additional steps required to get that. In that way, it returns to being based more on the legal merits than it does on the political leanings of a single judge.

[UNI88]

And the administration is free to appeal all the way to SCOTUS. The harm from patchwork implementation of a law/executive order is greater than that from a nationwide hold until the case runs through the process.

Did you oppose these nationwide bans when Republicans used them against biden from 2021-2024?

At least I try to be consistent.

I think it's also important to note that the Trump v CASA ruling literally gave the roadmap of how to get universal relief that was being sought, but just without the shortcut method that was being employed by the judge shopping. Class action lawsuits have been and still are that very vehicle to gain the universal relief if that relief is needed and warranted. Sure, it's more work to get that, but for the real obvious and easy ones that's exactly what plaintiffs did in the immediate wake of the CASA ruling - they just refiled what they had in the class action format and the additional steps required to get that. In that way, it returns to being based more on the legal merits than it does on the political leanings of a single judge.

Good points. Questions:

• How long does/can it take to achieve class certification?
• What happens in the interim?
• Related to CASA, would people born in the US be in bureaucratic limbo where the government could: refuse to issue them a social security number or a passport, deny benefits, etc?
• Who could be hurt and what redress do they have for any damages?

[BDKJMU]

Forgot to post this big win last week.

Federal appeals court upholds Trump mass detention policy for illegal immigrants
AG Bondi says Fifth Circuit ruling on illegal alien detention 'secured yet another crucial legal victory' for administration

….The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can lawfully deny bond hearings to illegal immigrants arrested nationwide under the Constitution and federal immigration law…..

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federa ... immigrants

[UNI88]

Virginia redistricting election will go forward while state Supreme Court considers appeal

Virginia voters will get to cast ballots on a congressional redistricting plan benefiting Democrats while a court battle plays out over the legality of the effort.

The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that a statewide referendum can be held April 21 on whether to authorize mid-decade redistricting, and the court will decide sometime later whether the plan is legal.

[BDKJMU]

Virginia redistricting election will go forward while state Supreme Court considers appeal

Virginia voters will get to cast ballots on a congressional redistricting plan benefiting Democrats while a court battle plays out over the legality of the effort.

The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that a statewide referendum can be held April 21 on whether to authorize mid-decade redistricting, and the court will decide sometime later whether the plan is legal.

Current map 6D/5R map in a state that went 52 Harris/46 Trump.

Proposed gerrymander map.

Precisely why the conks in Indiana were pussies for not doing similar. Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same.

[UNI88]

Virginia redistricting election will go forward while state Supreme Court considers appeal

Current map 6D/5R map in a state that went 52 Harris/46 Trump.

Proposed gerrymander map.

Precisely why the conks in Indiana were pussies for not doing similar. Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same.

trump and governor Hot Wheels started it.

[GannonFan]

Current map 6D/5R map in a state that went 52 Harris/46 Trump.

Proposed gerrymander map.

Precisely why the conks in Indiana were pussies for not doing similar. Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same.

trump and governor Hot Wheels started it.

Gerrymandering is a 200+ year activity. Even before this latest round there's been plenty. We didn't get down to less than 30 competitive congressional districts because of Trump.

[Caribbean Hen]

Virginia redistricting election will go forward while state Supreme Court considers appeal

Current map 6D/5R map in a state that went 52 Harris/46 Trump.

Proposed gerrymander map.

Precisely why the conks in Indiana were pussies for not doing similar. Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same.

Ouch
they ruined a great map because the good ole Delmarva peninsula is gone … horrible

[UNI88]

trump and governor Hot Wheels started it.

Gerrymandering is a 200+ year activity. Even before this latest round there's been plenty. We didn't get down to less than 30 competitive congressional districts because of Trump.

No we didn't but trump definitely initiated the latest round with his efforts in texastine, Missouri, etc. Democrats responded in kind so BDK stating that "Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same" is intellectually dishonest.

I wish it wasn't happening but it is.

[kalm]

Virginia redistricting election will go forward while state Supreme Court considers appeal

Current map 6D/5R map in a state that went 52 Harris/46 Trump.

Proposed gerrymander map.

Precisely why the conks in Indiana were pussies for not doing similar. Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same.

Dems are notorious pussies when it comes to campaigning. Blame both parties.

[BDKJMU]

Gerrymandering is a 200+ year activity. Even before this latest round there's been plenty. We didn't get down to less than 30 competitive congressional districts because of Trump.

No we didn't but trump definitely initiated the latest round with his efforts in texastine, Missouri, etc. Democrats responded in kind so BDK stating that "Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same" is intellectually dishonest.

I wish it wasn't happening but it is.

Because prior conks had never responded to donks in previous round. Trump was just trying to play catchup.

[UNI88]

No we didn't but trump definitely initiated the latest round with his efforts in texastine, Missouri, etc. Democrats responded in kind so BDK stating that "Donks are going full bore gerrymander in every state they can, conks should be doing the same" is intellectually dishonest.

I wish it wasn't happening but it is.

Because prior conks had never responded to donks in previous round. Trump was just trying to play catchup.

WRONG.

The Donks last significant gerrymandering efforts followed the 2000 census and mid-decade 2005 in Georgia.

Conks had significant gerrymandering efforts (Redistricting Majority Project - REDMAP) in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio following the 2010 census.

Both Conks and Donks Both have actively pursued gerrymandering.

California’s anti-gerrymandering reforms (2008 Prop 11 & 2010 Prop 20) were voter initiatives with Donk support, intended to limit legislative map-drawing. The state’s recent 2025 Prop 50 changes, however, were motivated by Conk mid-decade efforts in texastine and other states.

[BDKJMU]

Because prior conks had never responded to donks in previous round. Trump was just trying to play catchup.

WRONG.

The Donks last significant gerrymandering efforts followed the 2000 census and mid-decade 2005 in Georgia.

Conks had significant gerrymandering efforts (Redistricting Majority Project - REDMAP) in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio following the 2010 census.

Both Conks and Donks Both have actively pursued gerrymandering.

California’s anti-gerrymandering reforms (2008 Prop 11 & 2010 Prop 20) were voter initiatives with Donk support, intended to limit legislative map-drawing. The state’s recent 2025 Prop 50 changes, however, were motivated by Conk mid-decade efforts in texastine and other states.

In PA the donks (Democrat controlled court) threw out the conk map and drew up their own map that took effect in 2018.

[BDKJMU]

Take that VA.

Missouri’s governor had full constitutional authority to call a special legislative session to redraw the maps, and they’ll be in effect for the 2026 election