Our Justice Department is trying to stop funding sanctuary cities. We knew the liberals would sue and they did. We also thought that the liberal district courts would rule in favor of the cites. They did. But then they did something odd and claimed that their ruling applied to the entire country, not merely their district.
Last week, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted a national preliminary injunction in a case about federal policy regarding “sanctuary cities.” I want to highlight the court’s reasoning on the scope of the injunction.
First, a quick refresher on some key terms: An “injunction” is a remedy by which a court orders someone to do or not do something. A “preliminary injunction” is an injunction given before there has been a trial or other decision on the merits. It is supposed to be used when a court needs to act quickly in order to keep the status quo in place so that it will be able to reach a final decision. Usually an injunction protects only the plaintiff, not other people who aren’t in the case. But federal courts have increasingly taken to issuing “national” injunctions — injunctions that control how the federal government acts toward everyone, not just the plaintiff. A lot of national injunctions were given at the end of the Obama administration, and still more have been given now in the Trump administration. Read more here.