Final answer:
Dr. King declared injunctions unconstitutional when they restrict civil rights based on race without rigorous court scrutiny. He aligned with the principle that racial discrimination could never justify legal restrictions and that the rights enshrined in the Constitution must protect individuals from governmental overreach.
Step-by-step explanation:
Dr. King expresses that certain injunctions are unconstitutional because they curtail civil rights based on race and are not subjected to the necessary rigorous scrutiny by the courts. He emphasizes the notion that even though not all restrictions are unconstitutional, they must undergo rigid scrutiny, particularly those that impact a single racial group. King insists that measures affecting civil rights, such as injunctions meant to limit protests or actions for racial justice, must be examined carefully to ensure they do not stem from racial antagonism, which is never a valid justification for such restrictions.
Kings's perspective is informed by several historical rulings by the Supreme Court that outline the importance of constitutional protections for individual rights, especially regarding the freedom of expression and the prohibition of prior restraint. These cases uphold the principle that government should not force individuals to express beliefs or opinions, nor should they impede on the constitutional rights of individuals without a pressing public necessity. King's argument, therefore, revolves around the broader constitutional principle of protecting civil liberties against unjust governmental actions.