I’m not sure but that I might agree with Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Now that you’ve recovered, let me explain what I may agree with and why. For years in the country we’ve had factions, left and right, that would sue each other based on some real or presumed constitutional protection and ask that a federal court enjoin from bring implemented. These could be laws passed by Congress or more likely, Executive Orders of the President. The side wishing to enjoin the law or order usually foes court hunting; that is, they look for a federal court to file their complaint that would be likely to favor their petition. It could be any of the 94 federal courts in the 50 states or U.S. possessions. For me, it’s always been disturbing that a single judge may hear a case that comes rom outside his or her jurisdiction and be able to allow or stop the Executive from implementing policy whether I’m for the policy or not. A single, unelected person, making those decisions. The decision then still has to be tried and go through the process of appeals , maybe to the Supreme Court itself, and the adjudication may take years. What could be done about it? Should these cases go immediately to the Supreme Court? How about to one of the 13 Circuit (appeals) courts? I don’t think unless there’s some Constitutional emergency that the Supreme court should be involved and as far as Circuit courts, shopping occurs there as well. The way around this is to not allow district courts to issue National Injunctions, allowing the case to go through the process to begin with.