| President Donald Trump is calling out lower courts’ use of nationwide injunctions, or orders that apply across the country and block administration policies. |
| In a post to TruthSocial on March 20, he said, “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” |
| His comments came amid a flood of lawsuits against his agenda and an increasing number of district court judges blocking various actions by his administration. |
| Earlier this week, Trump said some judges should face impeachment, apparently prompting a response from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said that impeachment was an inappropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” |
| Three of the nationwide injunctions against Trump’s administration are the subject of an appeal with the Supreme Court. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the court in a brief to say “enough is enough” for nationwide injunctions. “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. |
| The number of nationwide injunctions grew substantially under Trump’s first term, according to a study by Harvard Law Review. |
| Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms. Trump’s first term saw 65 injunctions—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of an opposing party. |
| The orders have mostly come from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party of the administration. That trend, the study said, was fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case. |
| Both Trump and Democrats have targeted judge shopping, which became more scrutinized after a federal judge in Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill. |
| On TruthSocial, Trump said “the danger is unparalleled” and that “these Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes.” He added that 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!” |
| Roberts has set a deadline of April 4 for a response to Harris’s brief. It’s one of multiple requests the administration has made amid a wave of unfavorable lower court rulings. |
| Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to take up the administration’s appeal challenging a lower court order requiring the government to disburse $2 billion in foreign assistance. |
| Justice Samuel Alito said he was stunned by his colleagues’ decision and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch in dissenting from their denial of the administration’s appeal. |
| “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.” |
| Judges have defended the nationwide scope in different ways. “The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care. |
| The Supreme Court could respond to Harris’s brief or another case by opining on the use of nationwide injunctions but it’s unclear how or whether they might modify their use. In the past, Supreme Court justices have expressed concern about the use of nationwide injunctions. |
| In a 2020 concurring opinion, Gorsuch said there was a problem with “the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.” |
| Justice Elena Kagan said during a talk in 2022 that “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.” |
| Trump and others have targeted judge shopping. Last year, the Judicial Conference of the United States encouraged random judge assignment. Other proposals have included eliminating nationwide injunctions or having a panel of judges that reviews cases where nationwide relief is requested. |
| |
| To dig deeper into the subject, read the following original reporting by our journalists: | |
| |
Thank you for being a subscriber
If you enjoy what you’re reading, please consider forwarding this email to someone who might find it informative. Your Feedback
We'd love to hear from you. You can email us at topstory@epochtimes.nyc We may feature an exerpt of your response in the next newsletter.
| | |
