- Republicans introduced a bill that would limit court orders to parties that are directly before the court. It would end nationwide injunctions, which conservatives say have led to judges overstepping their authority and blocking President Trump’s agenda nationwide.
- There have been 17 nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration since January 20.
- Republicans have also suggested impeaching judges who rule against President Trump and lowering the funding level for certain courts.
Full Story
Republicans are continuing their push to stop nationwide injunctions with a new bill that would limit court orders, including injunctions and temporary restraining orders, to parties that are directly before the court. Conservatives contend individual judges whose district covers a specific region of the country have been overstepping their authority by blocking President Trump’s agenda nationwide.
“This clear overreach was never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. This important legislation will be a tool to help stop the unreasonable restraints on Executive Authority,” Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., said in a statement.
What is a nationwide injunction?
There are more than 90 district courts in the U.S., with 677 judges. Geographically, each district covers at most a single state, often just a region within a state. A judge in one district has the power to implement a universal injunction that halts a measure or executive action across the country while the case works its way through the court system, which can take years.
“The Constitution limits judges to exercising power over ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’ Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous,” Sen Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement.
How many injunctions have been issued against Trump?
The Congressional Research Service identified 17 nationwide injunctions issued in the first two months of the Trump administration.
To put that into perspective, the Department of Justice identified 12 nationwide injunctions during George W. Bush’s presidency and 19 during Barack Obama’s. There were 55 during the first Trump administration.
Is there any consensus on nationwide injunctions?
Democrats, Republicans, politicians and judges have all spoken out against nationwide injunctions.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal member of the court, once stated, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
“There’s an argument that we should look at how injunctions from a single District Court have applied nationwide, but it ought to be above politics. It should not be motivated by particular rulings. And so far, the system seems to have worked pretty well,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told SAN.
This bill has a greater chance of passing than some other measures from Republicans, considered by some as more extreme. They include impeaching judges who ruled against the president or lowering the funding levels for certain courts.
“I’m not going to support reducing the federal judiciary’s budget because someone doesn’t agree with their opinions. That’s not the right way. That’s not the way we do it in America,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said.
The Supreme Court has the power to tell lower courts to stop nationwide injunctions. Members of Congress contend Article III of the Constitution gives lawmakers the power to set boundaries on judicial authority.
