> "Very soon after Trump took power, they ruled that courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Trump's orders"
No, specifically they said district judges couldn't write rulings that applied to other districts.
Your local city council would hit the same limitation if they attempted to write laws for other cities.
Which, is a mixed bag. Judge shopping was a huge problem from universal injunctions. But at the same time, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for?
If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches?
Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch.
Sometimes, there should be things that should have avenues to be quickly stricken down before more parties fall victim to them