Author: Kent Scheidegger

Supreme Court Nixes Nationwide Injunctions

by · Jun 27, 2025 8:09 am

The Supreme Court held today that the statute that grants federal courts authority in “suits in equity” does not empower a court to issue an injunction against enforcement of a statute or executive order that applies nationwide, as opposed to one that only protects the plaintiffs in the case.

The high court based its opinion on the statute only, not Article III of the Constitution as the government had requested. That means that Congress can still enact a new statute spelling out when, if ever, nationwide injunctions can be ordered. Bills are pending in Congress, as I noted in this post. Congress should proceed with that effort. Sometimes such injunctions are needed, but swift review must be provided so that a single judge does not halt enforcement on a dubious theory, especially where the same theory has been rejected by other district judges.

Continue reading . . .

Revoking Federal Supervised Release

by · Jun 20, 2025 9:10 am

There is no parole, as such, in the federal sentencing system, but a sentence can include a period of “supervised release” following the term of incarceration. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), when imposing the original sentence, a federal judge can consider, among other factors, “the need for the sentence imposed” “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” Can the judge consider that factor when deciding on a revocation of supervised release?

No, the Supreme Court decided today in Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483. Why not? The simple answer is because Congress said so. The statute on supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c), specifies the factors. Many of the factors used to set the initial sentence are included, but that one is conspicuously absent.

So why is there any difficulty at all? Continue reading . . .

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Cal. Guard Federalization

by · Jun 20, 2025 7:31 am

In previous posts, I discussed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s suit against President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard to deal with the Los Angeles riots, the district court’s temporary restraining order, and the court of appeals’s immediate short-term administrative stay.

Yesterday, despite being a federal holiday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s TRO for the duration of the appeal. In circumstances such as this, the stay pending appeal may be the whole ball game. If order is restored and the federalization rescinded before the actual decision of the appeal, the appeal may very well be dismissed as moot.

The panel was not too worried about the point that I considered the weakest element of the President’s case, the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 that the orders be issued through the state governor.

Continue reading . . .

Prison Litigation, Administrative Remedies, and Jury Trial

by · Jun 18, 2025 8:41 am

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down five opinions in civil cases this morning. One of them is a law-enforcement-related civil case, a category we keep tabs on at CJLF.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to cut down on the amount of federal court litigation involving prisoners. One requirement of the law, a common one in cases involving government agencies, is that a prisoner must first try any administrative remedies available in the prison system before turning to the courts. The Supreme Court has previously decided that a remedy is not “available” for this purpose if it is unavailable in practice, even if it exists on the books.

So, if a prison guard accused of misconduct blocks the prisoner from the grievance process by destroying his papers, the process would be unavailable, and the prisoner can proceed to federal court. But if that blocking is disputed, who decides if it really happened, the federal judge or a jury? That was the question in Perttu v. Richards, decided today. Continue reading . . .

Privacy for Donors

by · Jun 16, 2025 8:08 am

The U.S. Supreme Court took up two civil cases for full review today. One of them involves privacy for donors to nonprofit organizations. Back in 1958, the Supreme Court decided that protection of donor lists was part of the constitutional freedom of association in NAACP v. Alabama. The case taken up today, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, AG of NJ, involves procedural issues rather than the scope of the protection.

Guard Federalization TRO Issued, Stayed

by · Jun 13, 2025 9:07 am

Following up on yesterday’s post, District Judge Charles Breyer granted California a temporary restraining order against the federalization of the National Guard. The federal government filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit. That court stayed the TRO temporary and set briefing on a very fast track. The state’s opposition is due Sunday at 9:00 a.m., the fed’s reply is due Monday at the same time, and argument is Tuesday at noon. (All times PDT.) Continue reading . . .

Federalizing the National Guard in California Over the Governor’s Objection

by · Jun 12, 2025 11:36 am

On June 9, California Governor Gavin Newsom sued President Trump over the President’s directive to federalize units of the California National Guard and deploy units of the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to protect immigration officers and facilities and enable them to enforce federal immigration law. The suit claims that these actions are not authorized by the federal statute cited for them and that they violate the post-Reconstruction Posse Comitatus Act.

On its face, the complaint does seem to have some merit under the statute cited in President Trump’s memorandum, but there are other statutes that he could have invoked that are not subject to the same objection. On consideration of those other statutes, this appears to be the kind of issue that calls for maximum deference to presidential authority. Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Evasion of Successive Habeas Petition Limit

by · Jun 12, 2025 7:36 am

In 1996, Congress cracked down hard on the then-routine practice of state prisoners filing one habeas corpus petition after another to attack the same criminal judgment. Relitigating the same claim is not allowed at all, and making new claims is severely restricted. Ever since, the defense bar has been trying to poke holes in this barrier, with varying degrees of success.

Today the Supreme Court slammed shut a loophole that had been created by one court of appeals but rejected by most of them. Convicted child abuser Danny Rivers claimed that he could request to amend his habeas corpus petition to add a new claim even after his initial petition had been denied by the district court and was pending on appeal. The unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson holds:

A second-in-time §2254 petition generally qualifies as a second or successive application, triggering the requirements of §2244(b), when an earlier filed petition has been decided on the merits and a judgment exists. Because the Fifth Circuit correctly applied this straightforward rule, we affirm.

Continue reading . . .