logo
Opinion - ‘Here we are again' — federal district courts piling on injunctions to stop Trump

Opinion - ‘Here we are again' — federal district courts piling on injunctions to stop Trump

Yahoo26-04-2025

'Here we are again.' Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to 'sanctuary jurisdictions.'
In President Trump's first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco.
Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California.
Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors' orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden's term.
The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts' issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality.
Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations.
Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick's order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities.
Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities.
Under one of the orders, titled 'Protecting the American People against Invasion,' Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to 'evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.'
Orrick noted that the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law.
The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to 'commandeer' states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies.
The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that 'interfere' or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by.
Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Terminiello v. City of Chicago that the Constitution cannot be construed as a 'suicide pact.' I have never been fond of that quote, which has often been used to justify the curtailment of individual rights. But these cases could bring a new meaning to the quote in immigration cases. If one accepts the Trump administration's data, then continued funding of these jurisdictions might be more akin to being forced to pay for your own hit man and then calling it suicide.
There is a reason courts generally wait for these conflicts to become 'ripe.' The administration could easily engage in impermissible 'commandeering,' but it could also 'evaluate and undertake' more focused and defensible withholdings of federal funds. Judge Orrick decided not to wait to find out.
These are difficult questions, but the Supreme Court can reduce these cases by actually ruling with clarity. The court has often left these issues mired in ambiguity, kicking cases like cans down the road for any final resolution.
Consider the order out of the District of Columbia blocking an effort to change federal voting forms to require proof of citizenship. Trump campaigned on the issue, and, according to a Gallup poll, 84 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of requiring voters to show such identification.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the federal government from changing the standardized national voter registration form and to have federal voter registration agencies 'assess' the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form.
Kollar-Kotelly raises good-faith limits on presidents' ability to regulate elections, a power mainly left to the states. However, this is a policy that does not necessarily impose a new condition on states.
After all, non-citizens are barred from voting in federal elections in all states. Again, there must be some ability of the administration to act to address a national priority in the funding of election reforms and practices. The question is whether the court will recognize such a federal interest.
The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed 'here again,' but this is not a good place for anyone.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Protests Spread Beyond Los Angeles over Immigration Raids
Protests Spread Beyond Los Angeles over Immigration Raids

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Protests Spread Beyond Los Angeles over Immigration Raids

Police officers tackle and drag a protestor during a rainy anti-ICE demonstration in New York. Credit - Madison Swart/ Hans Lucas — AFP via Getty Images Anti-ICE demonstrations are expected to spread to more cities this week after days of unrest in Los Angeles, with at least 30 new protests planned across the country in response to the Trump Administration's recent immigration raids. Additional protests have already broken out in San Francisco, Sacramento, Houston, San Antonio, Chicago and New York, where activists rallied over the weekend and into Monday in solidarity with demonstrators in Los Angeles. By Monday afternoon, organizers had scheduled demonstrations in nearly every major city, signaling a growing backlash to the Trump Administration's immigration enforcement tactics and its deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. Read more: Trump Suggests Arresting Gavin Newsom, Escalating Tensions Over ICE Raids The protests were sparked by a series of workplace immigration raids last week, and escalated after the arrest of David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) of California, during a demonstration in Los Angeles on Friday. Huerta, a prominent labor and civil rights leader, was taken into federal custody and hospitalized after what ICE described as interference with a federal operation. His arrest has galvanized organized labor, with SEIU chapters announcing nationwide demonstrations in his defense and in protest of what they called a 'clear attack on our communities.' In Los Angeles, the protests have grown larger and more confrontational since Friday. Hundreds of demonstrators marched downtown and clashed with law enforcement. Some protesters set barricades in the streets, vandalized buildings, and hurled objects at law enforcement. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds, and the California Highway Patrol used flash-bang grenades to clear demonstrators after a group blocked traffic. Read more: Can the President Activate a State's National Guard? At least 150 people have been arrested in Los Angeles since the protests began, and city officials warned that further disruptions could continue throughout the week. Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to the city over the weekend, bypassing California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'a violation of state sovereignty' and signaled plans to challenge the decision in court. Trump has described protesters as 'insurrectionists' and 'professional agitators' who 'should be in jail.' A map of anti-ICE demonstrations posted by SEIU showed that events were planned in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Seattle, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Charlotte, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and more. Additional demonstrations may also take place, though the largest demonstrations remain centered in Los Angeles, where National Guard soldiers in tactical gear continue to patrol areas downtown. 'ICE's brutal, military-style tactics have no place in our communities,' SEIU wrote in a post on X. 'We demand safety. We demand respect. We demand David's release.' Write to Nik Popli at

Mexico's president condemns violence amid protests against ICE raids
Mexico's president condemns violence amid protests against ICE raids

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mexico's president condemns violence amid protests against ICE raids

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Monday denounced acts of violence linked to widespread demonstrations in Los Angeles against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Speaking during her regular morning news conference, Sheinbaum called for respect for legal processes in immigration enforcement and asked U.S. officials to uphold the rule of law. 'We condemn violence wherever it comes from,' Sheinbaum said, per Reuters. The protests erupted on Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids in the city and surrounding communities. Demonstrations were largely peaceful, but tensions flared Saturday and Sunday. Police have reported 42 arrests after Sunday's protests turned violent, including 19 by the California Highway Patrol, who were called to a demonstration that closed the 101 Freeway through DTLA for several hours. Local and state leaders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, have criticized President Donald Trump's use of the National Guard in trying to quell anti-ICE immigration, saying the escalation in force has led and will only lead to further trouble. Newsom also announced plans to sue the Trump administration over the deployment. Trump also indicated that he would be willing to bring in the U.S. Marines if he deemed the situation warranted it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Mom buys product she thought was U.S.-made, but warns of misleading labels
Mom buys product she thought was U.S.-made, but warns of misleading labels

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mom buys product she thought was U.S.-made, but warns of misleading labels

As President Trump's trade war continues, some consumers are searching for products made in the U.S. When Mary Schubart set out to buy bedding for her twins heading off to college, she was looking for products that were safe, provided comfort and, if possible, she wanted to buy American-made. "I like the idea of buying to support the local economy, but my overriding concern was safer," Schubart said. Schubart said she thought she found the perfect mattress pads from Pottery Barn Teen. It was advertised online as "crafted in the USA," but when they arrived, she was surprised to see one of the tags read "made in China." "I knew it is one of the countries that has less stringent regulations pertaining to health and pertaining to final product production, so I was disappointed," she said. Schubart reported her findings to Truth in Advertising, a nonprofit watchdog group that investigates when companies make false claims. Laura Smith, the Truth in Advertising legal director, said they had already flagged false claims by Pottery Barn Teen to the Federal Trade Commission. "We had found 800-plus examples of products marketed as 'made in the USA' or 'crafted in America' when they were actually imported," Smith said, of the merchandise found on seven William Sonoma websites in 2019. Schubart's complaint led to the largest "Made in the USA" civil penalty in history, with more than $3 million against Williams Sonoma, the parent company of Pottery Barn Teen. In a statement, Williams Sonoma apologized for what it called an "administrative mistake," saying, "Last year, we received an FTC fine due to an unintentional administrative mistake associated with the online product descriptions of seven items we sell. We are deeply sorry for any confusion that may have been caused by the inaccurate information that was shared, and we have improved our processes to help prevent similar incidents in the future." "Civil penalties, as long as they're more than a slap on the wrist, they can have a real impact. But it needs to be a fine that's big enough to hurt," Smith said. What qualifies as "Made in the USA?" The Federal Trade Commission requires that products advertised as "Made in the USA" be all or virtually all manufactured domestically. Plus, the ingredients or components must be made and sourced in the United States, which is the issue in a current lawsuit against Reynolds Aluminum foil for its "Made in the USA" label. The suit claims the product's key raw material, Bauxite, is not mined in the U.S. Reynolds says the claims have no merit and it will defend the case. How to know if a product is American-made Amid Mr. Trump's tariffs on certain products, some companies have said they plan to invest more in U.S. manufacturing. To verify if a product is "Made in the USA," check the label for that exact wording. Beware of qualifying language like "Assembled in the USA" or "with imported parts." If you're unsure, consumers can verify with the brand by going to its website or calling directly. Australian reporter covering Los Angeles protests shot with rubber bullet by police officer Kristi Noem says "we are not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen" amid L.A. crackdown Magic in the dark: The fantastical worlds of Lightwire Theater

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store