The Trump administration is looking to outflank the activist Left on by curtailing the power of injunctions from lower district court judges. In most cases, Obama appointees have hamstrung constitutional and proper actions issued by this White House. Two of the most significant have been the executive order on immigration, which the Left erroneously calls the “Muslim ban,” and the rollbacks to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals—the latter of which was already constitutionally questionable under Obama. The executive gave an order and they can rescind it. The courts have tried to block it. And the Trump White House has had enough.
The plan for this was set into motion last year. Now, the Trump administration has reiterated the call to rein in these judges from district courts. Vice President Mike Pence said these judges were “unfairly” targeting Trump polices. He’s not wrong. The Supreme Court ruled definitively that the executive order on immigration was well within the parameters of the executive. Still, the Left throws a tantrum. Too bad—elections have consequences. With this move on the lower courts, you can bet liberal America is going to go bananas (via The Hill):
Pursuing an end to nationwide injunctions would mark the latest attempt by President Trump to shape the federal courts after getting two Supreme Court justices confirmed and more than 100 of his judicial picks installed by the Senate.
Trump opponents have argued that nationwide injunctions are necessary to protect people who may not be part of a lawsuit but would nonetheless be impacted by a particular policy or legislation.
“When the extent of the harm is nationwide, the relief should be nationwide,” Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney for the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, told The Hill.
[…]
…Cecillia Wang, a deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration's effort to limit the scope of injunctions "is simply to stand in the way of justice."
Wang also argued that the power to issue nationwide injunctions is protected under the Constitution.
“I can't take seriously the vice president's threat to undo what the founders of the country, the framers of the Constitution intended, which is to have a safeguard against unlawful executive branch action,” Wang said.
But other legal experts oppose nationwide injunctions. They argue that judges’ rulings blocking policies should apply only to those behind the legal challenge and that courts are overstepping their bounds by issuing wide-ranging injunctions.
Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has been vocal in his opposition to national injunctions, said such sweeping orders “take the courts outside of their constitutional role.”
He argued that district courts were designed to rule on matters involving specific parties and not an entire nation.
Recommended
Couldn’t agree more. This is going to be another major legal fight, but for now—the Trump administration has to worry about the Democrats’ impeachment crusade that has zeroed in on his personal income tax returns.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member