Working on the principle that a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Trump is correct on this issue.
Even if his reasons and reasoning are incorrect,the conclusion he comes to is correct.
The granting of nationwide injunctions is a recent phenomenon and has only become common in the proceeding decade. There is not a long history nor precedent for such injunctions to issue.
I suggest the following restraint be placed by the Supreme Court upon the district courts.
District Courts in exercising their equity power to enjoin a federal injunction, would be limited in issuing an injunction as to the minimum extent necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiff or plaintiffs bringing the action or if a class action, complete relief to such members of the class as reside in the district of the judge issuing the injunction. The injunction would follow such plaintiffs as they travel throughout the country, since the district court retains jurisdiction over a resident while he travels.
A District Court would be forbidden to extend an injunction to protect individuals that are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of that District Court.
This has been the long standing practice since 1789 until very recently.
It allowed legal issues to percolate in multiple courts, before finally being decided by the Supreme Court.
Nationwide injunctions are not healthy to the orderly development of judicial precedent and they should be ended.