Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Senate and House Collaborate on Stopping Rogue Judges
Both the House and Senate are working on their own versions of legislation aimed to stop rogue judges from legislating from the bench and issuing universal injunctions, and their bills should easily be combined into one bill:
Senator Chuck Grassley is introducing a bill to stop judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, which experts say are an essential part of the judicial branch’s ability to check the power of the executive branch.
Grassley, a 91-year old Republican from Iowa and president pro tempore of the Senate, is introducing a bill to end nationwide injunctions because they ‘have become a favorite tool for those seeking to obstruct [President Donald Trump’s] agenda,’ according to an op-ed he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Some people who oppose this legislation have their own reasons:
University of Michigan law professor Barbara McQuade wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg last week arguing these orders can ‘slow down a presidential administration from rapid, drastic change,’ but notes that the orders are ‘the very point of checks and balances.’
McQuade admitted there are problems with nationwide injunctions but warned that getting rid of them all together isn’t the solution.
‘Ending nationwide injunctions would create more problems than it solves,” she added. ‘Without them, a federal judge who finds a substantial likelihood that an executive order violates the law could block its implementation only in that district, leading to a patchwork of rulings across the country.’
One possible change could include limiting nationwide injunctions to ‘only situations where nationwide uniformity is essential, such as cases involving border enforcement,’ McQuade writes.
Since when is it up to anyone to decide how slowly or quickly the President should initiate his EOs? But McQuade did show some sense in her last sentence. Of course, deciding when something is essential nationwide is just another criterion to fight over.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California has been busy working on his own bill in the House.
‘The malfunction of a critical part of our judiciary should be a concern to us all, and that’s why this bill is on a glide path to the floor,’ Issa, the bill’s lead sponsor, said in a statement. ‘It’s a Constitutional solution to a national problem and an idea whose time has come.’
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) confirmed on the social platform X that the bill would come to the House floor next week [the week of April 1].
Issa’s brief, 2-page bill would limit the power of the 677 District Court judges to issue injunctions that restrict those beyond the parties directly involved in a case, effectively blocking nationwide injunctions. The bill states: ‘No United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court.’
The House was due to hold hearings this morning. Chip Roy was due to lead the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on the Constitution, and Darrell Issa was scheduled to lead the subcommittee on courts.
This legislation is so critical that I hope that the House and Senate will meet with each other in conference quickly, agree to one bill, and vote to bring this outrage by the courts to an end.
Published in General
If anyone thinks nationwide “relief” is necessary, that’s why the Circuit Courts and SCOTUS exist.
Otherwise both executive and legislative powers are usurped by a group of people who aren’t even as accountable as Congress.
Um . . . why should one judge (the one who issues a nationwide injunction) get to claim priority over any other judge in another court district who has a different reading or interpretation that leads the other judge to conclude an injunction is inappropriate?
Since the law professor apparently hasn’t noticed, there are many, many areas of law in which district courts in different districts make inconsistent rulings, so there’s already many patchworks of rulings across the country.
Only if we (society through our elected representatives) decide the entire country should have one and only one court district, and that all decisions by any judge in that one nationwide court has nationwide effect. Such a system though would create some principled conflicts with the concept of a representative republic with local representation.
Oh, I meant to comment on the bolded part also. Yes, in my legal career, any time there was an exception to a rule or law it was not unusual to spend a significant amount of time, energy, and money arguing over whether the case or circumstance fit the exception. Time, energy, and money that detracted from trying to solve the underlying controversy.
Excellent point, FST. Always interesting to see how the various agendas emerge.
I say permit universal injunctions, but if a judge issues a universal injunction which gets overturned, even once, the judge forfeits his position. That forces the judge to put some skin in the game.
They could do that now, by impeaching/removing the judges. But they won’t. And I suspect even if they passed such a law, some judge would rule it unconstitutional.
I am sure some judge would, but it will get upheld by the Supreme Court. Article III allocates Congress the power to organize the lower courts as they see fit. Congress could even set term limits for lower court judges. Perhaps they should.
It’s not a matter of won’t on impeachment. It’s a matter of political reality which many never seem to come to grips with. To remove an impeached judge requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Not going to happen often in any political climate much less today.
The problem with Rep. Issa’s bill is that its language appears to allow injunctive relief against the specific party in the suit. Well, if the party being enjoined is a federal agency, then how is an injunction against the agency’s action not going to have a national effect? Same with any national organization.
An example: The Corporate Transparency Act’s requirement for Business Ownership Information reports from small businesses was found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable by a federal court. The court enjoined its application to the plaintiff in front of it (like Issa’s bill would provide).
That plaintiff was an organization litigating on behalf of its members, which were small businesses in locations all across the entire country.
The federal agency charged with enforcing the CTA announced it would appeal the ruling, but while the appeal was pending, the companies who were members of the plaintiff organization would not have to comply while all others outside the organization still would have to file Business Ownership Information reports by the deadline.
Thus, two side-by-side but unrelated businesses in the same small office building were subjected to different laws, as declared by a far-away judge, in a different district or state. Nuts.
And yet some Republicans are screaming for impeachment. What a waste of time.
My husband just told me they’re going on a two week recess. They’d better be ready to roll when they get back.
There already was an Easter recess on the calendar, but then, instead of voting this week on voter ID for federal elections and a bill to rein in rogue judges, the House had to adjourn when 8 GOP members threw a hissy fit over a bill to allow 12 weeks of remote voting by members with a newborn at home not coming to a vote, and these 8 joined Democrats, who were happy to support invoking a Rule that shut down proceedings to prevent President Trump’s priorities being voted on. A GOP Stupid Party “Own Goal” for the ages.
Idiotic. That really is pathetic, when the country has so much at stake.
At the hearing before Issa’s committee today, the Honorable Ms. Crockett went on a rant about how disgraceful it was to even consider impeaching judges.
After her rant, the Chairman reminded her and everyone that she co-sponsored AOC’s bill to impeach Alito and Thomas.
Ms. Crockett deserves everything she gets thrown at her, and more.
McQuade didn’t address checks on judges. Seems an imbalance to me … need 2/3 vote to impeach/check a judge but only the “vote” of one judge to “check” a president. That is insanity, not the Constitution.
Yes, and the point of a district judge having authority only in their district, is that an appeal from that – by either side – would go to the Circuit Court, and from there if there is a conflict in circuits, to SCOTUS which is responsible for nationwide matters.
Perhaps we could find a way for lower courts to issue injunctions against the executive but those injunctions have no force until the SCOTUS agrees to them.
So they can make their assertions and those can go up the chain without all these ridiculous stays, etc. and the judge who first issued them can do a little victory dance when/if his small change legal opinion is found legit by the big boys and girls.
In the meantime a president doesn’t have to play mother-may-I with every last twig
ofon the judicial branch.All 677…twigs. (I was going to use a different word.)
It would seem logical that a district courts rulings would apply within their district. And an appeals court ruling would apply within whatever districts they supervise. Now it may well be prudent to consider out of district rulings if they are well reasoned, but they should have no legal force. Laws to clarify this would be appropriate.
That’s an excellent point, RH. But then I don’t expect her to be fair.
Interesting suggestion, Rob. But they certainly wouldn’t give up that much power willingly!
Sadly, don’t see this passing the Senate. Not that they shouldn’t try.
Why do you see it failing?
https://x.com/i/status/1906948011667698146
You forget law schools are left of center and are populating the country with these graduates whose goal is equitable outcomes, not constitutional outcomes.
Teeny tiny majority, fillibuster, not suitable for reconciliation.
totalitarians have found their path – a one judge dictatorship for issues.
Of course not. Law schools are producing left of center lawyers.
Needs 51 votes. The usual suspects will defect. The rogue judges only need 1 vote, their own, to make laws.