Excerpt:
"Questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.

"Mr. Shumate, what's a universal injunction?" Kennedy asked.

Shumate explained, "Senator, a universal injunction is an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case but applies nationwide or in some cases universally."

Kennedy pressed further, asking, "What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?"

"I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator," Shumate admitted.

"There is no statutory basis, is there?" Kennedy reiterated.

"No, Senator," Shumate confirmed.

Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.

"Can you name me that case?" he asked.

"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate responded.

"There isn't one, is there?" Kennedy pressed.

"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate repeated.

Kennedy then laid out the fundamental issue: "You have a plaintiff and a defendant, and the plaintiff files a lawsuit in federal court. The judge has jurisdiction over those parties. How can a federal judge issue an order that affects everyone else outside of that courtroom?"

"Uh, it shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time," Shumate admitted. "I think on the theory that courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it nationwide so that all non-parties are protected."

"I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action," Kennedy countered.

"That's correct, Senator," Shumate agreed."