Do you agree with SCOTUS’ decision to impose new limits on lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions?

Yes (46%) – "Yes, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to limit nationwide injunctions. It prevents single district judges from blocking federal policies for the entire country, which oversteps their role and invites judge shopping. Legal challenges should follow the proper process, not be short-circuited by a single early ruling. This decision restores balance and keeps the courts from acting like policymakers."

• "Lower court judges should not be able to rule on national issues brought forth by the Executive Branch. They also need to remain impartial and non-partisan.....which is something they have not done recently. Keep politics out of ANY decisions!!"

"It is so easy nowadays to find a federal judge who will block something coming out of the POTUS' office, regardless of who that person is. I support the Supreme Court's decision because I think lower judges and courts are overstepping their authority. Nationwide injunctions disrupt the balance of power, allowing a single judge to halt policies that our Commander in Chief directs. These injunctions make it harder and harder for presidents to get work done which is why they were elected to the position in the first place. If those courts or judges want to address things specific to their scope of responsibility and legislative oversight, that's fine, however I don't think they should be able to stop things nationwide."

• "The lower courts were abusing their powers, and it was completely partisan. If you are only a lower court judge, you don't have the right to stop the President of the United States. It was becoming another way for democrats to stop Trump, who was duly elected and is within his powers to make these decisions."

"Though this will only shift the problem to an overuse of class-action suits, it should have the effect of deterring plaintiffs from shopping for a sympathetic District Court to lodge their complaint."

No (40%) – "When an Executive Order is blatantly unconstitutional, it seems ridiculous to not be able to issue a nationwide injunction. It's going to take a long time to make it through the courts and partial adherence to these temporary orders is going to make things infinitely more complicated than just pausing it nationwide until it makes it through."

• "Nationwide injunctions allow for careful evaluation of new laws and the constitutionality of them before being imposed on the public. Now we have entered an age where the law will not be evenly applied across the nation creating confusion as to what the rules and laws are at any given moment."

"The decision of the Supreme Court to limit the power of federal courts is a dangerous one when the Supreme Court is appointed by the President and serves a lifelong term limit. We need term limits on Supreme Court justices to counter the increasing imbalance of powers that is happening right now."

Unsure/other (14%) – "I like the idea of a level playing field across the country; it is difficult when states have different rules. However, I am also very much in favor of the “gears of government” grinding slowly. That is a means to make sure we are not making impulsive decisions that will be harmful to the majority. Having the provision in place where legislation crawls slowly through the system allows more time for public comments, and opinions to reach representatives and lawmakers."