As RedState reported, the Trump administration scored a major victory on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled that district court-level nationwide injunctions exceeded judicial authority. That will throw a wrench into the left-wing strategy of seeking universal relief in a select few left-wing jurisdictions across the country and hopefully return some actual balance to the separation of powers within the U.S. government.
Of course, while the decision was a victory for common sense and for voters who would prefer judges not overstep their bounds to essentially operate as president, it was a defeat for Democrats who have relied on that abuse to remain in power even when they lose. On MSNBC, Melissa Murray melted down, claiming the Supreme Court had "dealt a death blow to the rule of law."
🚨NEW: MSNBC Legal Analyst Melissa Murray *NOT PLEASED* that SCOTUS limited district judges' power to hamstring Trump Admin🚨
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) June 27, 2025
"This is a huge win for the Trump administration because the court has essentially kneecapped lower courts from stopping this administration when it… pic.twitter.com/fsDsTeyWF0
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest to Murray that the purpose of a district court judge is not to "stop this administration" when she and other liberals get upset. Rather, it is to rule on the merits of the cases before them, with respect for established law, within the confines of their jurisdictions. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in her blistering rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, checks and balances apply to the judicial branch, too. A single district court judge is not the supreme authority over the executive branch.
SEE: Amy Coney Barrett's Stinging Rebuke of Ketanji Brown Jackson in Injunction Ruling
Someone like Murray doesn't like that because she truly believes venue shopping for lower court judges that will rule in her party's favor should override the results of elections. That is how Democrats have maintained an effective veto over Republican presidents even when they lose. The Supreme Court finally said that enough is enough, and it was long overdue.
Meanwhile, over on Bluesky, things are going about how you'd expect.
Insightful legal analysis over on bluesky. pic.twitter.com/rX5GB703nZ
— Major Scobie (@GrahamGreeneEsq) June 27, 2025
You'd think that someone like Jamelle Bouie, who writes for The New York Times, would have a basic understanding of that which he opines. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. To be clear, the Supreme Court did not even consider the question of birthright citizenship in its ruling. As for the rest of the posts there, they are the typical left-wing tripe we've heard for years now. I especially love the idea that you can't even critique Justice Jackson without it being an overt act of racism. That's sure convenient, isn't it?
JFC these people. pic.twitter.com/zicQkYhcEG
— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) June 27, 2025
Everything Democrats don't like is racism, which is exactly why the accusation no longer carries any weight. The Supreme Court made the right decision here. If the left would like to wield nationwide power, they should try winning a nationwide election. Until then, they can keep crying on Bluesky and MSNBC.
Editor's Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people
Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member