Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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.
Discussion (55)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Excellent point, FST. Always interesting to see how the various agendas emerge.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
You're seeing five of 55 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.