The Grok Chronicle: Chapter 3

GROK:

Ask me anything

GROK:

RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING ON NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS

The U.S. Supreme Court did indeed issue a significant ruling on June 27, 2025, in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., which substantially limited the ability of federal district courts to issue universal or nationwide injunctions against executive actions.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held that district courts generally lack statutory authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to enjoin the federal government from enforcing policies on a nationwide basis, emphasizing that such relief should be tailored to the specific plaintiffs unless exceptional circumstances warrant broader application.

The ruling stemmed from challenges to an executive order on immigration-related issues, and it overturned lower court injunctions that applied universally, arguing that they overstep judicial bounds and disrupt executive functions.

However, the decision left room for narrower injunctions or for states as plaintiffs to seek broader relief in certain cases, and it has not entirely eliminated the practice—judges have since found workarounds in some instances.

This ruling builds on prior Supreme Court criticisms of nationwide injunctions (e.g., in cases like Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California in 2020), but the 2025 decision marks a more definitive restriction, aiming to prevent single judges from halting national policies.

JUDGE LAPLANTE'S BLOCK ON TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision, on July 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante (District of New Hampshire) issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump's Executive Order (EO) aimed at limiting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

The EO, issued in January 2025, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to certain non-citizen parents, interpreting the amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause narrowly.

Laplante's ruling came in the class-action lawsuit Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., filed by immigrant rights groups, and he certified a nationwide class of affected individuals, effectively halting enforcement across the country—at least temporarily.

This was the third such block since the Supreme Court's June ruling, with Laplante arguing that a universal injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, despite the new limitations.

He paused the order for seven days to allow an emergency appeal, which the Trump administration pursued in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Critics, including some conservative groups, have highlighted this as an example of judicial overreach defying the Supreme Court's guidance, while supporters view it as a constitutional safeguard against an unlawful EO.

As of now, the block remains in place pending appeals, drawing significant media and political attention to Laplante.

CONNECTION TO THE GORDON MACRAE CASE AND ALLEGATIONS OF MISHANDLING

The attention on Judge Laplante has indeed resurfaced discussions about his prior handling of the habeas corpus petition for Father Gordon MacRae, a Catholic priest convicted in 1994 of sexual assault charges in New Hampshire and sentenced to 67 years in prison. MacRae has maintained his innocence for over three decades, claiming the case involved fabricated allegations, prosecutorial misconduct, and a lack of physical evidence. Investigative journalism, including pieces by Dorothy Rabinowitz in The Wall Street Journal, has questioned the conviction, noting inconsistencies in accuser Thomas Grover's testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence (e.g., no child pornography was ever found, despite claims influencing sentencing).

In 2012, MacRae filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction on grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence of police misconduct by Detective James McLaughlin (who has faced separate allegations of falsifying records in other cases). Judge Laplante presided over this in the U.S. District Court for New Hampshire and dismissed the petition on March 25, 2015, after a brief oral argument hearing where MacRae was not present and no new witnesses testified.

The critical article by Ryan A. MacDonald linked from Beyond These Stone Walls (a blog associated with MacRae) alleges several "grievous errors" in Laplante's ruling:

Misattribution of Evidence:

Laplante heavily relied on a purported 1989 phone conversation where MacRae allegedly corrected McLaughlin's use of "pedophile" to "hebophile" (implying an admission). However, the article claims this conversation was unrelated to the Grover accusations—it stemmed from a separate, dismissed complaint by Jon Plankey—and no recording or transcript exists, as McLaughlin later said tapes were "recycled." MacRae denies the exchange ever took place and passed two polygraph tests supporting his innocence.

[Editor’s Note: THE GERALDO SHOW — REALLY?”

An unexpected development occurred regarding a document found in McLaughlin’s files when this case was handed over for pre-trial discovery in 1994. MacRae states that the “pedophile/hebophile” conversation cited above never took place and is fraudulent, and two polygraph test results support that position.

McLaughlin’s files revealed a November 14, 1988 transcript of a Geraldo Rivera Show (transcript # 303, Air Date: November 14, 19880 that was faxed from a New York iaddress to Keene, New Hampshire. The requestor was Detective James F. McLaughlin of the Keene Police Department. The transcript is from a Geraldo episode entitled “The Church’s Sexual Watergate” pertaining to allegations against other Catholic priests. A portion of the transcript was underlined and marked with an asterisk by some unknown person (McLaughlin?), revealing this exchange:

Geraldo: “Did there come a time, Sir, when this priest was recognized to be a pedophile by the church and was taken to Saint Luke’s Hospital to be treated?”

Mr. Lewis: “They then sent him to Saint Luke’s Institute. He was kept there 12 weeks. During that time it was determined, according to their medical records, that he was a homosexual. We finally were able to obtain copies of those medical records. We have had them evaluated. They establish without question he is a pedophile and hebophile.”

Geraldo: “What’s a “hebephile?”

Mr. Lewis: “It’s an abuser of adolescent children.”

Geraldo: “I thought that’s what a pedophile was. Help me.”

Mr. Lewis: “The pre-adolescent is primarily a pedophile. A hebephile is an adolescent.”

This clumsy exchange for the sensationalized television show does not even contain the correct terminology. For the previous five years, Father MacRae was the Director of Admissions for a psychiatric facility for Catholic priests in New Mexico. He would never have used the term “hebephile” because it does not exist. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the correct term is “ephebephile” referring to an adult who is primarily sexually attracted to adolescents and young adults.

END OF EDITOR’S NOTE]

Bias and Presumption of Guilt:

The ruling included language like "Especially a Catholic priest … MacRae did not react in a manner one would expect of an innocent person," which critics argue reflects prejudice against clergy amid the Church's abuse scandals. The article compares this to historical injustices, invoking St. Thomas More's emphasis on hearing all sides.

[Editor’s Note:

An unexpected development occurred regarding a document found in McLaughlin’s files when this case was handed over for pre-trial discovery in 1994. McRae denied that the “pedophile/hebophile” conversation above ever took place, and two polygraph test results support that position.

McLaughlin’s files revealed a November 14, 1988 transcript of a Geraldo Rivera Show that appears to have been faxed from a New York studio to McLaughlin. A portion of the transcript was underlined and marked with an asterisk by some unknown person (McLaughlin?), It con

Procedural Shortcomings:

The hearing lasted under two hours, with no opportunity for MacRae (described as having an "encyclopedic" memory) to testify or for new evidence (e.g., McLaughlin's alleged misconduct) to be fully examined. Laplante denied a Certificate of Appealability, forcing costly appeals that the First Circuit upheld in 2016, exhausting MacRae's resources.

Broader Systemic Issues:

The piece cites books like Actual Innocence by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, arguing appellate courts often dismiss errors as "harmless," perpetuating wrongful convictions. It calls for renewed scrutiny, linking to other articles on the case, such as "The Trial of Father MacRae: A Conspiracy of Fraud."

Recent X posts echo these criticisms, particularly in light of Laplante's birthright citizenship ruling. For instance, the Catholic League accused Laplante of being "morally delinquent" in MacRae's case, linking to an article detailing how he "put the screws" to the priest.

Older posts from supporters like FACT (a UK group for the falsely accused) and individuals have highlighted the alleged errors since 2016.

Regarding my own perspective: As an AI built by xAI to seek truth and maximize helpfulness, I've previously noted in discussions on wrongful convictions that cases like MacRae's raise serious questions about due process, especially when evidence is thin and incentives (e.g., civil settlements) may encourage false claims. Based on the available reporting and the article's details, the habeas dismissal does appear to warrant further review for potential factual conflations and procedural fairness—though I emphasize this is not a legal judgment, and ultimate resolution lies with the courts. MacRae's supporters continue to advocate for his release, pointing to over 30 years served without parole (due to refusing to admit guilt). If new evidence emerges, it could prompt appeals, but as of now, the conviction stands.

This convergence of events has amplified calls for accountability in judicial decisions, blending constitutional debates with concerns over individual justice. If you'd like me to dive deeper into any aspect (e.g., the 14th Amendment implications or more on McLaughlin's record), just let me know!