Understanding the ruling, the shift in legal accountability, and how it might not be the win some people think it is.

I’m gonna say something that will probably tick off my Democrat friends, but kind of also throw off my Republican friends, because I’m not saying what they think I’m saying.

I’m glad SCOTUS ruled the way they did, re: nationwide injunctions by lower courts.

Yes, I’m still politically unaffiliated and no, I’m not taking sides. This has to do with politics, but more than that, it’s about our legal framework as a country.

Before I get into what I want to say, there’s a bit of history to cover first.

For most of US history, lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions wasn’t a thing. It really wasn’t.

The first use was back in the 1960s. Then, in the 40 years after that – from the 60s to early 2000s – it was only used a few times.

It really took off during the Obama era, where it was used A LOT. And looking at both Trump eras, it’s still being used quite a bit.

Unlike what a lot of talking heads and pundits like to say, or even the administration, it’s not a “rogue judge” making a call. It’s usually a ruling that happens when a case going before a single judge.

That said, nationwide injunctions were meant to be rare – a legal safeguard. But in our growing and hostile political landscape, they became a tactical weapon, and yes, they were abused.

But it was only a legal Band-Aid, and not real legal work.

I say that believing that they were abused because it was a quick and easy fix so that we didn’t have to do what we’ve always done – battle it out on the legal merits.

As a result, there wasn’t really any real consequence when authorities broke the law or violated the Constitution.

It became a political game of tit-for-tat where nobody ever really faced consequences.

What SCOTUS’s ruling did was reset the legal field.

Now, SCOTUS has said that the executive order trying to dismantle birthright citizenship, and others, can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – which is what we did before lower courts leaned so heavily on nationwide injunctions.

And here’s the part that I think people are sleeping on – there’s real accountability now.

Under the APA, while the president himself might enjoy protections, the departments in the executive branch that carry out illegal orders – DHS, DOJ, HHS, etc. – can be held liable, and not just civilly. Criminally.

See, nationwide injunctions were also a shield.

The widespread use of nationwide injunctions didn’t just block executive actions; in a weird way, they also shielded the executive branch from deeper legal consequences.

By blocking policies outright, there was never a trial. No evidence weighed. No rulings on constitutional grounds. No civil or criminal liability assessed.

So yeah, while it might seem like a loss to my Democrat friends? It’s really not.

This was a correction.

In my opinion, I see it as a correction of an imbalance in the legal system.

Now is the time – the opportunity – for states to start working together again, to start building real legal foundations that can’t be knocked over by a handful of executive orders.

We haven’t had that in a while.

And here’s the part that really got my mind turning.

Almost everyone I know is calling this a win for Trump – but is it really? Follow me here.

With nationwide injunctions as they were, the DOJ was essentially defending one big lawsuit. Now? Now, they have defend hundreds, maybe thousands, of smaller lawsuits from every corner of the country.

That’s not a win. That’s a legal siege.

So, why did I call it a Trojan Horse ruling?

Because once I realized that the DOJ was about to bombarded with so many cases, I had to ask the question, “Did SCOTUS know this would happen?“

Because if SCOTUS knew this would happen – and trust me, I’m pretty sure they did – then this wasn’t just a ruling.

It was a Trojan Horse. It looked like a gift to executive power. Like the Court was saying, “Here – you don’t have to deal with nationwide injunctions anymore.”

But what they really did was crack the door wide open for localized lawsuits, fragmented rulings, and death by a thousand court filings.

It’s judicial judo. Redirect the force. Let them exhaust themselves trying to fight it all at once.

If that was intentional – and I think it might have been – then this might be the most silent but loud judicial protest we’ve seen in modern history.

And it’s already started with the recent rulings in California.