We're not even two weeks out from the end of the Supreme Court's term, and already lower courts are trying to circumvent rulings. And it's clear, with the highest Court in the land firing back, that the justices are getting annoyed. District court judges are trying to maintain the power to block anything while not listening to the Court.

In truth, Justice Alito warned of this in his concurrence. He pointed to two avenues these judges could use to issue nationwide injunctions despite an overwhelming majority of the Court not viewing nationwide injunctions kindly.

Alito wrote, "But district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of "nationwide class relief," and today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest."

That's precisely what has happened. An Obama appointee rapidly certified a class action requested by plaintiffs and claimed the class included everyone "who are currently present or who will be present in the United States," or even those who might face restrictions.

To put it mildly, that is not how class action certification traditionally works, and lower court judges are warping it beyond all recognition to reclaim universal injection powers they lost just two weeks ago.

That's not the only case of its kind. Other judges are attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court by sidestepping direct orders. That happened with a court order on the ability of the Trump administration to deport convicted criminals to third-world countries such as South Sudan.

The Supreme Court fired right back and struck down orders from that lower Court. And the Supreme Court went further, encouraging the Trump administration by saying, "If the Government wishes to seek additional relief in aid of the execution

of our mandate, it may do so through mandamus."

This decision by the Supreme Court was 7-2, with Elana Kagan agreeing the lower courts had no leg to stand on. She wrote, "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed."

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, but what they argued bore no relation to reality. However, what is increasingly clear is that this same issue will return to the Supreme Court, and the Court will have to undertake the difficult task of determining the actual scope of universal injunctions.

The first case removed the easy option from lower courts. In reality, not many of these courts issue such injections. Both parties have forum-shopped to find a judge willing to grant them a nationwide injunction to halt any actions taken by the current administration.

Stripping universal injection powers away, especially with the widespread abuse we've witnessed in the last 25 years, is a necessity for restoring sanity to the judicial system. And you don't have to take my word for it. Take Elana Kagan's word.

In 2022, she spoke at Northwestern University Law School and said:

"[I]n recent years some district courts have issued nationwide injunctions, and this happened in the Trump administration and it has also happened in the Biden administration so this has no political tilt to it, but some district courts have, you know, very quickly issued nationwide injunctions to stop a policy in its tracks that . . . the President and/or Congress has determined to be the national policy, and it just one district court stops it ...

[And] then you combine that with the ability of people to forum shop to go to a particular district court where they think that that will be the result and you look at something like that and you think that can't be right that one district court, whether it's in you know in the Trump years people used to go to the Northern District of California and in the Biden years they go to Texas, and it just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through normal process."

Kagan has also written on the topic. Her decision to join the dissent in the most recent case was notable, if only because it cuts against her recent writing and public comments. However, with her joining more 7-2 opinions, one has to wonder whether she's seeing how ridiculous the hard-leftist positions of Sotomayor and Jackson seem.

The Supreme Court is slowly restoring sanity to this process, but ending universal injunctions was just the first step. Now, they will have to address class action rules and other issues because district judges are determined to maintain their powers.

We've taken one step in the right direction. But there are several more to go.