US' district judge raj?

Time of India

14-05-2025

'Trump leaves presidency to become even more powerful district court judge,' read a recent headline on the satire website, The Babylon Bee. Though parody, it subtly hints at judicial overreach.
From ordering mid-air turnaround of planes carrying illegal aliens with alleged criminal antecedents to an El Salvadoran prison, blocking Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from accessing his own department's payment systems and restoring foreign aid disbursal, judge after judge – incidentally, all Democrat-nominated — has put the president's agenda on hold.
At dispute is a legal remedy: 'nationwide injunction', which courts use to 'control a party's conduct', either by prohibiting or requiring certain action. The relief granted is limited not only to those filing the case, but to anyone, anywhere.
Challenge can be filed in any of the nearly 700 federal district courts across the country. Litigants, therefore, cherry-pick judges who are likely to grant a nationwide injunction, a tactic known as 'judge/forum shopping' that has troubled Republican and Democratic presidents alike. But none like Trump.
Source: 'District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions,' Harvard Law Review, Volume 137, Issue 6, April 2024. PP. 1701-1724 at pg. 1705.
A recent Harvard study revealed that of the 127 nationwide injunctions issued between 1963 and 2023, more than half – 64 – were sanctioned during Trump's first term, 59 of which were approved by judges appointed by a Democratic president.
As of April 6, 77 days into his second innings, Trump faced 50 (and counting) nationwide injunctions that Attorney General Pamela Bondi has called the 'real constitutional crisis'.
Make no mistake, this is lawfare, the weaponisation of the law to hobble Trump, 2.0. Or what Politico calls, the 'court-case presidency'. Recall that candidate Trump was facing four separate criminal cases, with 91 indictments in all.
Litigation is an inherently slow process, the proverbial tareekh pe tareekh. Much of the Democrats' current political strategy centres on courts as they contest every executive order by Trump.
In his final term, Trump is already in a race against time. The incumbent's party often loses ground in midterm elections, held halfway through a president's four-year term. So, Trump effectively has until October next year to fulfill his campaign promises.
For the Democrats, stalling Trump's policies in courts is a win. The more, the better. Add to it the arson and vandalism against Trump ally Elon Musk's electric car company Tesla, rallying the faithful to fight the 'Oligarchy', and leveraging the pain caused by the president's on-again, off-again tariffs. That's their playbook going forward.
And if the Democrats reclaim the House in November 2026, they are going to impeach him. There is no criterion for impeaching the president now, certainly none when it comes to Trump.
As Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan said after the Democrats captured the House in the 2018 midterms: '…we're going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the motherf****r'.
They did just that (Trump's first impeachment in 2019). Because he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate the alleged corruption of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
On his way out of White House, President Biden granted a 'full and unconditional pardon' to Hunter and other family members, covering acts going back more than a decade.
Frustrated by a wave of nationwide injunctions, House Republicans passed the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 to limit district courts' authority to issue such orders. However, the Senate is unlikely to approve it given the Democrats' opposition.
Some lawmakers filed articles of impeachment against four district judges. Moves to oust a judge are extraordinarily difficult, lack support in either chamber of Congress, and have drawn flak from Chief Justice John Roberts, too.
Politicians adore the judiciary so long as it goes along with their program (sound familiar?). Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and current Senate Minority Leader, embodies this attitude.
Addressing an irate pro-abortion throng on the steps of the Supreme Court as justices heard a related case inside in March 2020, Schumer threatened two by name.
'I want to tell you, (Neil) Gorsuch. I want to tell you, (Brett) Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'
Fast forward to 2025 and Schumer is the biggest respecter of the judiciary in America today. To the extent that he has warned Trump of 'extraordinary action' if he defies the highest court.
Why wouldn't he? With 232 cases (including 7 closed ones) moving through the system and 145 rulings temporarily blocking many of the administration's initiatives, Democrats are handily winning the courtroom battles.
At a time when presidential fiat drives much of policymaking, nationwide injunctions act as an effective brake on government excesses. They protect people without means to bring suits, reduce unnecessary litigation, and ensure uniformity.
Nevertheless, what has bothered successive administrations is the remit of a single district judge to issue these injunctions. So far, the Supreme Court has sidestepped addressing the issue.
Individual justices have spoken out against it though. Four of the six conservatives on the bench — Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito — are for curbing the wider use of nationwide blocks.
In fact, Justice Thomas has labelled them 'legally and historically dubious'. Two of the liberal justices– Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — have also acknowledged that the court needs to review their appropriateness.
Now that the matter is before the Supreme Court once again, will the 'principled conservatives'
— Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — step forward?
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.