District judges' orders blocking Trump agenda face hearing in top Senate committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing to examine the influx of nationwide orders against the Trump administration by federal district judges.
Last week, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed the details of the event, set one day after the House committee's hearing on the same subject.
"Since the courts and the executive branch are on an unsustainable collision course, Congress must step in and provide clarity," he said in a statement last week. "Our hearings will explore legislative solutions to bring the balance of power back in check."
The hearing, titled, "Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions," will feature testimony from John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Samuel Bray, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner Jesse Panuccio, who was previously the acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the chairman of the DOJ's Regulatory Reform Task Force and vice chairman of the DOJ's Task Force on Market Integrity and Consumer Fraud, as well as Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts at Georgetown University Law Center Stephen I. Vladeck.
After revealing details of the hearing, Grassley rolled out his own bill to tackle the issue.
"These nationwide injunctions have become a favorite tool for those seeking to obstruct Mr. Trump's agenda," he wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. "More than two-thirds of all universal injunctions issued over the past 25 years were levied against the first Trump administration. In the past two months alone, judges have issued at least 15 universal injunctions against the administration—surpassing the 14 President Biden faced throughout his four-year term."
Grassley's legislation would restrain the lower courts' ability to issue nationwide orders, and they would no longer be able to stop "legitimate executive action" by granting orders to entities or individuals who are not parties to the lawsuit.
While similar bills have been introduced by Grassley's GOP colleagues in both the Senate and House, it is unclear whether the issue will get floor votes, as it would need to amass more than 60 votes in the upper chamber to beat the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has not elaborated much on the issue and, when asked about it, he told reporters, "At the end of the day, there is a process, and there's an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that's ultimately how it's going to be ended."
President Donald Trump has made his frustration with nationwide injunctions clear, urging action on them publicly.
"Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!" the president said in a recent Truth Social post. "These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings."
"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!" he continued.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Celebrities React to LA Riots
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Celebrities including Lisa Rinna, Halle Berry and Mark Ruffalo have been sharing their reactions to the Los Angeles riots on social media. The Context Protests erupted in the California city beginning on Friday following federal immigration raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops further heightened tensions. What To Know Hollywood rarely stays silent when it comes to current events—like the Los Angeles wildfires, TikTok ban and Trump's 2024 election win. Now, stars are taking to social media platforms like Instagram to voice their opinions on the L.A. riots. On Sunday, Finneas O'Connell—the brother of nine-time Grammy Award winner Billie Eilish—said he was tear-gassed at the Los Angeles protests. "Tear gassed almost immediately at the very peaceful protest downtown—they're inciting this," the singer-songwriter wrote via his Instagram Stories, adding: "F*** ICE." On Truth Social on Monday, Trump spoke out about the riots: "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!" Police stand outside of the city hall building after clashes with protestors on June 8, 2025, Downtown Los Angeles, California. The clashes come after ICE raids swept throughout the city over the weekend. In the... Police stand outside of the city hall building after clashes with protestors on June 8, 2025, Downtown Los Angeles, California. The clashes come after ICE raids swept throughout the city over the weekend. In the left inset image, Lisa Rinna attends the FASHION TRUST U.S. Awards 2024 on April 9, 2024, in Beverly Hills, California. In the right inset image, Halle Berry attends the Jury photocall at the 78th annual Cannes Film Festival at the Palais des Festivals on May 13, 2025, in Cannes, France. More; Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic;What People Are Saying The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Lisa Rinna wrote via her Instagram Stories: "He wants to declare martial law. So be careful in LA. He wants protests. Don't give him what he wants which is violence." Eva Longoria reposted a slew of protest-related clips and messages to her Instagram Stories, one of which from @brownissues read: "Cost of groceries keep going up! Gas keeps going up! Rent up! And, this administration decides to spend millions of our tax dollars to scare people from schools, abduct parents from work sites, and wait outside of Immigration Court to punish people 'doing it the right way!'" Singer-songwriter Gracie Abrams shared several reposts to her Instagram Stories too, including a message from her mom, Bad Robot Productions CEO Katie McGrath: "LA is afraid right now because their coworkers were kidnapped at work. Because the guy who sold them dinner was snatched by masked men. And because a bunch of neighbor's parents straight up never came home. As Trump gleefully escalates this with the National Guard, violence is inevitable. But just know this protest started from a place of protection. A place of love. We love our neighbors. We love our family. We love our community." Actor Mark Ruffalo, who has criticized President Trump in the past, shared a lengthy message to Instagram with the caption: "When you have working class people going after the poor and other working class people you know you are living in an oligarchy." In his viral post, which racked up over 175,000 likes—including from Jennifer Garner and Rachel Zegler—he said: "The billionaire up at the top is stealing you blind, and you are worried about the poorest of the poor ruining your life? You are pointing your guns in the wrong direction... The president is a grifter." In the comments underneath Ruffalo's post, Halle Berry posted a red heart emoji, which received 511 likes. My Cousin Vinny star Marisa Tomei replied with three clapping hands emojis, which received 338 likes. Orange Is the New Black actress Natasha Lyonne responded with two purple heart emojis, which received 264 likes. Melanie Griffith added in a note several red heart, clapping hands and flexed biceps emojis, which received 130 likes. The Bold Type star Katie Stevens posted: a single red heart emoji. What Happens Next In a message posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom said he plans to file a lawsuit against Trump over his National Guard deployment. "This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA [California]. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him."
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.
Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.
