XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics XPost: talk.politics.guns, talk.politics.misc
This has been a matter of debate since the first Trump administration.
Then as now, Democrats and other left-wing groups would file complaints in reliably left-leaning courts and some federal judge would issue a
"nationwide injunction" to stop whatever the left wanted stopped. Attorney General Bill Barr was arguing this was a problem back in 2019, noting how relatively rare nationwide injunctions were in previous decades and how
much power they grant a single judge.
Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one
a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years,
district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive
Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to
the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide
injunctions in all of the 20th century.
Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. And I would point out that the only case
litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld...
The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits,
Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges
in the same district...
Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield
unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision
does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide
injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely
irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged
in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every
case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of
an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can,
in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.
And with the start of the 2nd Trump administration, nothing has changed.
There have been an estimated 17 nationwide injunctions issued since
President Trump started his second term, though that number only count up
to March 27, 2025. That same month, President Trump called on Justice
Roberts and the Supreme Court to fix this problem.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well
lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do
not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very
dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. Lawyers endlessly search
the United States for these Judges, and file lawsuits as quickly as they
find them. It is then the obligation of Law abiding Agencies of Government
to have these “Orders” overturned. The danger is unparalleled! These
Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to
attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks. Again, a President has to be allowed to act quickly and decisively
about such matters as returning murderers, drug lords, rapists, and other
such type criminals back to their Homeland, or to other locations that
will allow our Country to be SAFE. It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT
AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE. STOP
NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and
the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114197092205719557
And the era of nationwide injunctions could come to an end later this week
when the Supreme Court hears a case on birthright citizenship. The case probably won't decide whether birthright citizenship is legal under the
14th Amendment. What the case is really about is the nationwide
injunctions different courts have used to block Trump's executive order on
the topic.
...based on the Trump administration’s request for emergency intervention
and the limited filings at this point, the justices are likely to decide
an important procedural issue, rather than directly decide who’s entitled
to citizenship...
The method invoked against the Trump administration is known as a
“nationwide injunction,” when a single US district court judge blocks enforcement of a government action not merely in the judge’s district but throughout the country. Administration lawyers have urged the justices to narrow the injunctions to cover only those parties to the cases.
Vox's coverage of this notes that nationwide injunctions have opponents on
both sides of the aisle.
The question of whether a single federal trial judge may issue an order
that binds the entire country is fraught and has been hotly disputed for
years. During the later days of the first Trump administration, Republican Justice Neil Gorsuch published an uncharacteristically persuasive
concurring opinion arguing that these nationwide orders must be reined in.
Gorsuch argued that injunctions — court orders that either require a party
to take a particular action or forbid them from doing so — are “meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit.” When one judge can go much further, halting an entire federal
policy nationwide, that creates an asymmetry. “There are currently more
than 1,000 active and senior district court judges,” Gorsuch wrote. In a
world with nationwide injunctions, plaintiffs can shop around for the one
judge in America who is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause, and potentially secure a court order that no other judge would hand down...
...nationwide injunctions so frustrated the Biden administration that, on
her way out the door, Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, filed
a brief asking the justices to limit these broad orders. That brief was
filed in December 2024, after Trump had won the election, so Prelogar knew
that Trump was likely to benefit if the justices took her up on her
invitation.
And yet, there's no doubt that ending these injunctions would be a huge
blow to the resistance. You could argue that these nationwide injunctions
are the core of the resistance, without them Democrats would have a much
harder road ahead.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this case — it stands to
determine whether federal judges can issue court orders that block
presidential policies across the entire country. The use of these
nationwide injunctions has figured prominently in the legal pushback
against Trump’s most controversial actions since the start of his second
term.
If a majority of the Supreme Court justices adopt the government’s
position in its entirety, then the injunctions could be narrowed to apply
to just the seven expectant parents who are parties to the case. The Trump administration might then be able to effectively end birthright
citizenship throughout the rest of the country, unless and until the
Supreme Court weighs in on the underlying legal merits of the president’s executive order itself — which have been roundly rejected by every court
that has considered the matter, and by virtually every credible scholar
and independent legal analyst — at a later date.
This is an argument in favor of allowing low level federal judges to
overrule the president, but as William Barr pointed out years ago, even a single Supreme Court Justice lacks the power to do that. He or she would
at least have to convince four other Justices to go along in order to
thwart the president. So the idea that a single judge, in say Vermont,
should be able to put the president's agenda on hold seems pretty
ridiculous.
We'll have a better idea where this case is heading on Thursday so stay
tuned.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/05/12/federal-judges-ability-to-issue- nationwide-injunctions-could-end-this-week-n3802707
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)