Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
Loading post...
{ "uri": "at://did:plc:okeqwvo5vbn75pcsrw4u3ink/app.bsky.feed.like/3ln272e7koi2h", "cid": "bafyreia6narzk4ffwbb2fpylqcv6g2z46qnjinzvcwwtdsilwfoq52idcq", "value": { "$type": "app.bsky.feed.like", "subject": { "cid": "bafyreie5tjsskuklx2qnu6gz7p3mf2znp42khu2rwtgi5lp37oekec5474", "uri": "at://did:plc:wvaeflwxjfyh73ltplfct6l4/app.bsky.feed.post/3lmzwnzvrhk2m" }, "createdAt": "2025-04-17T22:52:13.969Z" } }
Someone walk me through the argument against a “nationwide” injunction where the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and is enjoining the defendant from doing X because X is facially unconstitutional. If the defendant categorically cannot do X, why can’t the injunction be “nationwide”?
Apr 17, 2025, 8:22 PM