2 ms·
You misunderstand the situation. The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent. They serve to prevent
by nobody9999 1y ago
You misunderstand the situation.
The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent.
They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...
- firesteelrain 1y agoI do not misunderstand the situation Preliminary injunctions have long been part of the legal system and their role in preventing harm during litigation is well recognized. The recent ruling does not eliminate preliminary injunctions The case at hand addresses their scope and the authority of district courts to extend them beyond the parties involved in a specific case The only thing I have consistently raised is maintaining that structure so courts operate within defined authority It’s about time that SCOTUS reigned things in