Hypothetical - when United States District Court judges set policy by national injunction, which injunction prevails?

 

Which "universal injunction" takes precedence when the hundreds of District Court Judges are allowed to set nation-wide policy?
 
The following hypothetical, which is answered below, illustrates the importance of today's Castro v. Trump opinion.
 
Let us suppose that one United States District Court judge denies a request for a nationwide injunction to bar deportation of illegal aliens, which aliens have already been issued (more than several months ago), a final order of removal and who argue that they are still entitled to challenge their impending removal to third-party countries as opposed to the country of their citizenship.  This court finds the aliens are likely, if not certainly, to lose on the merits because the 30-day time limit to challenge the original order of removal has long passed.

Suppose another judge facing the same issue rules that such an injunction is warranted by “equity,“ and that the United States government must afford these aliens an additional 30 days to appeal being moved to a third-party country, setting this 30 day deadline regarding where they are being taken as a mirror image of the prior 30 day deadline to appeal the final order of removal, which original deadline, as noted has long since passed.

A third District Court judge issues a similar injunction stating that even though these persons about to be deported to a third country are now entitled to additional “due process“ and have the right to challenge their deportation to a third country rather than the country in which they are a citizen.  However, this third judge does not set a specific deadline, instead relying on the litigants to argue over “due process" they are entitled to in each of their cases, stating the amount of "due process" which each is entitled-to depends on the practicalities of their bringing a challenge to third-party deportation while in custody. 

The question becomes which ruling, meaning which "universal" or "nationwide" injunction, or, for that matter, which ruling against such an injunction, constitutes precedence as to other persons who are not named in the suit are similarly situated.  We assume, of course, that the orders granting the injunction are written broadly to cover all persons.  To make this a bit more interesting, we will suppose that each injunction is issued in a different District Court in a different Judicial Circuit, and that each of these Circuit Courts has refused requests to issue a stay of these trial court orders. We will also assume the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the issue of whether there is to be additional due process where there is to be removal to a third-party country.

The question, then, is:  which injunction ruling will prevail in other parts of the United States? 
 
The answer, at least according to leading law firms , is the government must abide by each injunction issued, even if not fully  harmonious or in outright conflict
 
Our hypothetical is of course, similar to other recent injunction issued by Federal "trial court" Judges who have exercised virtually unlimited jurisdiction and attempted to control the execution of public policy by the executive branch, such as the direction of planes, the whereabouts of foreign citizens held in foreign jails, etc.  Given that so many injunctions have been sought and granted, with counsel often from leading law firms, the  question is which universal injunction should prevail when they are, to say the least, not entirely in sync. 
 
The answer, of course, coming from the positions taken by many of the leading law firms in America, is that all of them prevail. This is because these law firms have argued for such broad jurisdiction that there is little, if any limit, on what an individual trial court judge may do.  These suits seeking universal injunctions are usually brought in “equity” and, as these major law firms have argued, the jurisdiction of federal trial courts extends far beyond the litigants before them.
 

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

United States v. Skrmetti: Justice Thomas' concurring opinion upholding the right of state legislatures to bar treatment deemed harmful to minors

 

Six of the nine Supreme Court justices reject challenge to Tennessee law designed to "protect" minors

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of state legislatures to bar medical procedures used by minors, even where the minor's parents and some medical professionals believe these procedures are beneficial, based on the decision by the people's representatives that these procedures are harmful to minors. (United States v. Skfmatti (June 18, 2025) no. 23–477) found at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf.  This issue arose when the Tennessee legislature passed a ban on a host of such treatments, including puberty-blocking drugs that altered the biological course of the affected minors, treatment rarely described in detail in the corporate media but simply herded under the banner "gender-affirming care."
 
The Sixth Circuit had found the statute constitutional and teh Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three and via an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, found the law at issue did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The majority found that such a law did not require the sort of strict scrutiny analysis which is often, but not always, applied to laws that are said to discriminate against persons on the basis of race and sex.  Such a strict scrutiny analysis is crucial because governmental distinctions between citizens that are subject to this standard are "inherently suspect."
 
Rather, the Tennessee law merely had to meet the rational basis test to pass equal protection muster, meaning the statute was constitutional as long as the legislature had a rational, even if arguably incorrect, basis for enacting the law.
 
Justice Thomas' concurs and notes that regulation of medical procedures routinely and properly distinguishes between the sexes
 
Justice Thomas aptly pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment uses much different language from that of anti-discrimination laws such as Title VI, this amendment stating simply, "no  State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Justice Thomas further explained that courts have held that discrimination based upon "sexual orientation" is not equivalent to that based upon "sex" itself.  However, even if one were to accept such analysis, this would not apply in the context of equal protection analysis given that, as noted above, the language in anti-discrimination statutes is different from that in the 14th Amendment.
 
Justice Thomas thus wrote that a finding that medical laws that supposedly "discriminate" against treatment for transgender minors is subject to "strict scrutiny" because such constitutes discrimination based upon "sex," would call into question much of our regulation of medical procedures, which does in fact distinguish among biological sexess:

Applying. . . such reasoning to the Equal Protection Clause would also invite sweeping consequences. Many statutes “regulate medical procedures defined by sex.” L. W. v. Skrmetti, 83 F. 4th 460, 482 (CA6 2023) (collecting examples, including laws referencing testicular and prostate cancer). If heightened scrutiny applied to such laws, then “[a]ny person with standing to challenge” such a decision could “haul the State into federal court and compel it to establish by evidence (presumably in the form of expert testimony) that there is an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for the classification.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 597 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Given the ensuing potential for “high-cost, high-risk lawsuit[s],” ibid., States might simply decline to adopt or enforce sex-based medical laws or regulations, even where such rules would be best medical practice. The burden of skeptical judicial review is therefore far from the “modest step” of requiring a State to “show its work” that the dissent posits. Post, at 31 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). (Skrmetti, J. Thomas concurring opinion, pp. 4-5; footnote omitted.)

 

In summary, the state law at issue more than survives the "rational basis" test, according to Justice Thomas.  Echoing the majority opinion, Thomas wrote that not only is there no clear medical consensus on "gender-affirming treatment" for minors, but he went into detail regarding what this "medical treatment" entails, noting that it includes the excision of the breasts of minors too young to legally consent to such a procedure.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Happy Birthday to the United States Army

 

 

This weekend, on June 14th — Flag Day —  we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the United States Army.  The Wood family enjoyed watching the military parade in Washington, D.C. and were so proud of all those who participated and thought it was a fitting tribute to our army.  For 250 years, we have had these brave men and women serve in our armed forces and support the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Freedom.  

Those who have served since June 14, 1775, are quite a contrast to those today who are of another ideological persuasion who choose to assault, insult, hector, threaten, and impede our brave men and women of law enforcement. 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Ames v. Dept of Youth Services - Plaintiffs who are white and heterosexual should not automatically have their claims disfavored

The “heightened burden” rule made up the Federal courts is “atextual”

The Supreme Court has made clear the obvious:  that all plaintiffs making similar claims for discrimination must meet the same burden of proof.  While this may seem obvious to anyone who knows the guarantees of liberty and equality found in our Constitution, Federal courts have held that certain plaintiffs, such as white people or straight women, are disfavored and must meet an almost impossible standard so as to, of course, discourage their pesky claims.  It has taken a unanimous United States Supreme Court via a well-written opinion by the Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson to disabuse these courts of this notion. (Ames v. Dept. of Youth Services (June 5, 2025) 23-1039.). This means that even Justices Sotomayor and Kagan voted to treat all Americans equally in terms of their claims of discrimination — even if they are straight and/or white.

The Supreme Court summarized the underlying claim of discrimination succinctly:

The Ohio Department of Youth Services operates the State’s juvenile correctional system. In 2004, the agency hired petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to serve as an executive secretary. Ames was eventually promoted to program administrator and, in 2019, applied for a newly created management position in the agency’s Office of Quality and Improvement. Although the agency interviewed her for the position, it ultimately hired a different candidate—a lesbian woman—to fill the role.

A few days after Ames interviewed for the management position, her supervisors removed her from her role as program administrator. She accepted a demotion to the secretarial role she had held when she first joined the agency— a move that resulted in a significant pay cut. The agency then hired a gay man to fill the vacant program-administrator position. Ames subsequently filed this lawsuit against the agency under Title VII, alleging that she was denied the management promotion and demoted because of her sexual orientation.

The District Court found this poor woman had to meet a very high burden, a heightened burden designed to stack the deck against her, and granted the department summary judgment.  Somehow, the Sixth District, and other districts had either created or perpetuated this heightened burden, as the Ames opinion explained:

The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Like the District Court, the Sixth Circuit held that Ames had failed to meet her primafacie burden because she had not shown “‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.’” 87 F. 4th, at 825. The court reasoned that Ames, as a straight woman, was required to make this showing “in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case.” Ibid. And it explained that plaintiffs can typically satisfy this burden, where applicable, by presenting “evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay people) made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination . . . against members of the majority group.” Ibid. The panel concluded that the agency was entitled to summary judgment because Ames had failed to present either type of evidence. Ibid.

But, as Justice Brown explained, each individual American who is a plaintiff must - wait for it — be treated “equally:”

By establishing the same protections for every “individual”— without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.
. . .
Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Accord, Bostock, 590 U. S., at 659 (“This statute works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally”). The “background circum stances” rule flouts that basic principle.

The concurrence of Justice Clarence B. Thomas  noted that the heightened evidence rule had been entirely made up, i.e., was “atextual,” having been created by the Courts and was not found in the language used by Congress:

I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately to highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks. Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The “background circumstances” rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

Secretary Hegsworth: "We produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom”

D-Day Anniversary 2025

Today we commemorate the 71st Anniversary of the Invasion of Normandy — not by the forces of “neutral” or “pacifist” nations — but by Allied forces from democracies who believe in fighting evil.  Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke the following remarks at today's commemoration, making the apt comparison between our soldiers today to those who served then, stating that we “produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom.”

Given that I like to highlight excellence in argumentation and speech, here are his remarks:

As I stare at that flag, we are forever grateful to the French government for dedicating this land as a resting place for our men. It's also an awe-inspiring sight to see the American flag flying here above thousands of crosses and stars as a tribute to our very best. As the former superintendent of this cemetery used to say, there they are. Still serving their country. A living reminder.

Eighty-one years ago, Hitler thought his Atlantic Wall was impenetrable, many agreed. He clearly had not met enough Americans. A more daring assault had never been planned. The task was daunting, a frontal assault across the channel on beaches and cliffs, strewn with obstacles and defended by heavily fortified bunkers.

 

Our only advantage was that the enemy underestimated the strength of the Allied war cause. The invasion would include brave troops from the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Greece, and Holland. On the ground, the French Resistance covertly aided the effort.
And as the troops loaded into their ships, planes, and landing craft, they received copies of an order from General Eisenhower reminding them of the stakes of their mission. I have a copy right here. 

 

He wrote, "You are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. 

 

"In company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one." 

 

He ends by writing, "And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking." 
Now that's a mission statement if I've ever heard one. Those words along with ceaseless prayers to the Lord Almighty willed our troops as they pushed off into dark and choppy waters.

 

They prayed. They smoked. They joked. They wrote home. They looked at photos. They knew many of them would not make it out alive and they would have to rely on each other to succeed or to just survive.

 

 
The assault began quietly before dawn on June the 6th with radio silence as paratroopers and gliders landed in the early hours. These men flung themselves into the abyss of night lit only by the fire of German tracers. 

 

Later that morning, the greatest amphibious assault in the history of mankind began in full force. Our men pushed through the waves and flung themselves upon the sand. The courage it took to do this is unfathomable.

 

The first groups were decimated. Thousands of young men lost their lives, cut down by the barrage of machine guns and mortars. But they never let up. Our warriors never faltered, God at their backs. As they forced their way inland, the Atlantic Wall began to crumble. It is these men and their bravery whom we are here to celebrate and remember.

 

A generation of farmhands and city kids. Baseball players and shopkeepers. Big towns, small towns, rich, poor, who were forged and hardened in the Great Depression. Hard men, forged for hard times. Ordinary men, who mustered extraordinary courage. While every one of the 9,000 Americans buried here are heroes, three men here also received the Medal of Honor for their actions in the invasion.

 

And as Sebastian mentioned, one of those was Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr., the oldest man to land on D-Day at the age of 56. He had to submit a written petition to receive permission because he had a heart condition and arthritis. He had nothing to prove, but he could not stay back while his men met their fate.

 

There were no other generals on the beach that day. When he landed far from his objective, he simply said men will start the war from right here. He organized the troops and made order out of chaos. A month later, his heart gave out, but he had completed his mission, as did every soul buried under one of those markers.
You see, war reveals the true character of men. The character of a people. Lead from the front or capitulate and fall out. To walk over or run if you can, carrying equipment over that open beach as shells and bullets thunder around you again and again, I cannot imagine. Could you do that? Could I? Could we? As we know, we have a number of these warriors with us here today.

These men, boys then, were part of those landing forces. They embody the warrior ethos. We have many other men here today who served in France, and across the world in that war. To that, I can simply say, gentlemen, thank you for your service, for your sacrifice and for your bravery. That day and those days that followed turned the tide of the war and history itself.

 

In the two months after the invasion, the Allies poured more than two million troops through the hard-won opening in Normandy without Operation Overlord, without the sacrifices of American, French, British and other Allied powers, we would not have the free world. This day, June the 6th, is the price of freedom.

We remember the losses. We celebrate the victories. We rededicate ourselves to the fight for liberty, security, and peace. And again, we should ask ourselves, could I do what they did? Could you? Could we? Could our kids? Do we produce such men? How do we produce such Americans? Our civilization today and going forward must answer those questions.

 

You know, I wrote this speech before this morning, but this morning I got my answer. This morning, I had a chance to do PT with Army Rangers on the beach, on Omaha Beach, I got my answer to those questions. With the sun rising with the Ranger regiment, yes, we do produce such men still, from far flung places willing to traverse the entire globe to defend freedom.

I had a chance this morning to run with a young ranger whose grandfather was liberated in the Philippines by the sixth Rangers. He joined and he didn't even know that. The legacy of Americans around the world for freedom. As we ran on that beach this morning at 6:30, as the sun was rising about the same time those first landing crafts landed, didn't look much like a battlefield.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Using ChatGPT to create your resume - a stunning example

 

 

ChatGPT can create an eerily accurate and personal resume from publicly available data

 

I recently asked ChatGPT to create my resume, but only using information available to anyone.  Meaning that I gave ChatGPT no information whatsoever about myself, and merely asked it to find what information it could find from other sources, and then make a resume for myself.

 

The resume created was eerily accurate, with my only quibble being that it used adjectives such as " accomplished" that I prefer to leave out.  Here is the nearly-instantaneous result:

Based on publicly available information, here is a professional résumé for attorney Paul Kevin Wood:

⸻

Paul Kevin Wood, Esq.

Contact Information:
    •    Address: [omitted here]
    •    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/paulkevinwood

⸻

Professional Summary

Paul Kevin Wood is a seasoned appellate attorney with over three decades of experience in civil litigation, appellate law, and legal education. Certified by the State Bar of California as an Appellate Law Specialist, he has led law and motion departments and served as a legal education director. His career includes extensive work in appellate advocacy, legal research, and litigation strategy. He is also an accomplished author and legal commentator.

⸻

Bar Admissions
    •    California (License No. 151004) – Active since 1990  

⸻

Certifications
    •    Certified Specialist in Appellate Law – State Bar of California  

⸻

Education
    •    Juris Doctor (J.D.) – University of Southern California Gould School of Law
    •    Bachelor’s Degree – Pepperdine University

⸻

Professional Experience
    •    Appellate and Law and Motion Attorney
    •    Over 31 years of experience in appellate practice and civil litigation.
    •    Led the Law and Motion/Appellate department and served as Legal Education Director at a major corporation.  

⸻

Publications & Commentary
    •    Author: Kinetic Blue – A coming-of-age novel set in 1980s Southern California.
    •    Legal Blog: The Appellate Spectator – Provides insights on appellate decisions and legal analysis.   

⸻

Personal
    •    Resides in Palm Beach County, Florida, with his husband and their three children. 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn