Metropolitan Digital

Men's Weekly


.

What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to presidential actions

  • Written by Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University
What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to presidential actionsA journalist runs out of the U.S. Supreme Court building carrying a ruling on the last day of the court's term on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When presidents have tried to make big changes through executive orders, they have often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or...

Read more: What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to...

More Articles ...

  1. Michelin Guide scrutiny could boost Philly tourism, but will it stifle chefs’ freedom to experiment and innovate?
  2. What Trump’s budget proposal says about his environmental values
  3. How Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral primary could ripple across the country
  4. Cyberattacks shake voters’ trust in elections, regardless of party
  5. Why energy markets fluctuate during an international crisis
  6. Scandinavia has its own dark history of assimilating Indigenous people, and churches played a role – but are apologizing
  7. Jews were barred from Spain’s New World colonies − but that didn’t stop Jewish and converso writers from describing the Americas
  8. Supreme Court rules that states may deny people covered by Medicaid the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood as their health care provider
  9. Toxic algae blooms are lasting longer than before in Lake Erie − why that’s a worry for people and pets
  10. Natural hazards don’t disappear when the storm ends or the earthquake stops – they evolve
Metropolitan republishes selected articles from The Conversation USA with permission

Visit The Conversation to see more