Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling

Politico

a day ago

Moss, an Obama appointee, emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump's policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures.
The ruling by Moss drew intense outrage from the Trump administration, which accused the judge of going 'rogue' and violating the Supreme Court's intentions.
Hours later, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered federal health officials to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.' He described the move as an example of federal officials 'acting first and thinking later.'
Despite the nationwide implications of his ruling, Bates emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.' The judge also left open the possibility that officials could go back to the drawing board and find a lawful way to restrict content related to so-called 'gender ideology.'
And in Massachusetts, Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge William Young was careful to emphasize that his expansive ruling restoring health research grants — cut following the same executive order cited by Bates — was nonetheless tailored only to provide relief to the organizations that sued. Like Bates, Young's ruling relied on the APA.
'Public officials, in their haste to appease the Executive, simply moved too fast and broke things,' Young wrote.
In short, the Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn't. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump's effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited.