Latest news with #NORRA
Forbes
21-04-2025
- Automotive
- Forbes
Shelby Hall's New Racing Team Set To Debut At NORRA Mexican 1000
Shelby Hall has launched her own independent racing team called Shelby Hall Off-Road (SHO). Shelby Hall, third generation off-road driver and granddaughter of Off-Road Hall of Famer Rod Hall, has never shied away from an adventure. By the time she was born, Shelby's father and uncle were competing, and her mom was a part of the race team. Shelby's parents ran an off-road driving school, and she and her sister tagged along. Many times, Shelby's father Josh Hall took her for a spin in the school's racing truck, his daughter urging him to go faster. After years of driving with her grandfather and charting her own course as an off-road competitor at prestigious events like The Mint 400, the Rebelle Rally, and the Baja 1000, Shelby has launched her own racing team, Shelby Hall Off-Road (SHO). The new team is set to compete in the upcoming National Off-Road Racing Association (NORRA) Mexican 1000 with Shelby co-piloting a Ford Bronco DR with her teammate Brady Melin. "Racing is in my blood," Hall says. "It's an incredible feeling to launch my own team while carrying forward the traditions my grandfather established. The Mexican 1000 is where so much of our family history was written, and I'm honored to continue that legacy on these same challenging Baja trails." Shelby Hall and Brady Melin, co-drivers for the NORRA Mexican 1000. SHO's Ford Bronco DR is a limited-production, factory-built, off-road racer. The 4x4 is designed for high-speed desert racing, and Shelby and Brady will be putting it to the test as the first privateer team to race one. Brady isn't just Shelby's teammate; he is her significant other, and the two have spent quite a bit of time dreaming about this moment. 'I trust him with my life, and it's just going to be so much fun to to embark on this together,' Shelby says. 'We've been in the trenches working on this for a long time.' The SHO shop is in Huntington Beach, California, not too far from where Shelby and Brady live. 'Brady is super laid back,' Shelby says. 'I'm a little more high strung, and so I think that we compliment each other really well. We have a blast in the race car together; he feels comfortable with me and I feel comfortable with him.' Brady is also a master mechanic, and Shelby describes him as a 'MacGyver type" fix-it person. 'If you're out the desert and something goes wrong, he will be able to put something together to get us to our next pit,' Shelby says. Shelby Hall's off-road truck, the Ford Bronco DR. Shelby clearly loves being off road, and she adored hanging out with her late grandfather. They raced together and he pushed her to learn and excel in their family business. When he passed away in 2019, Shelby felt lost; Rod was her best friend, her mentor, and her business partner. Above all, he was her beloved Papa. 'Now I'm launching my very own team, which is something I've been dreaming about since I was a kid,' Shelby says. 'It's something that I didn't know if I'd ever be able to do with without my grandpa.' The back of Shelby's race truck reads 'honoring the legend Rob Hall' on the back. If Rod were still here on this Earth, he would surely be glowing with pride. 'Right before my grandfather died, I was hanging out with him and we were chatting about life,' Shelby remembers. 'He said, 'Shelby, how are we going to get you your own race team?' It would be so cool to be able to show him that I made it happen. And I think he would just be so excited to watch, follow along, and be our biggest cheerleader.' Watch for more from Shelby Hall Off-Road. She's well on her way on her own legendary journey.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill aimed to restrict 'activist judges' awaits Senate vote; Critics call HR 1526 a threat to constitution
The Brief H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, aims to limit district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive orders. Critics, including the ACLU and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, argue the bill threatens constitutional checks and balances and judicial independence. The bill, having passed the House, awaits a Senate vote before potentially becoming law. LOS ANGELES - A bill that would limit courts' ability to block President Donald Trump's executive orders is awaiting votes from the Senate. This comes as H.R. 1526, or the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), was passed by the House of Representatives last week. What we know According to Congress' records page, H.R. 1526 aims to amend Title 28 of the United States Code and then limit "district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes." "Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court," the bill's summary reads on The bill was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents California's 48th Congressional District which covers parts of Riverside County, back in late February 2025. On April 9, the bill passed on the House floor with 219 YES votes, with 213 others voting NO. What they're saying Following the news of H.R. 1526 passing on the House floor, Issa issued the following statement on his District 48 webpage, accusing "activist judges" of abusing their powers: "Practically every day, activist federal judges are abusing their Article III power, contradicting the Constitution, and blocking President Donald Trump from exercising his executive authority to deport criminal illegals, reduce wasteful government spending and strengthen our military," Issa said in a statement released on April 10. Rep. Austin Pfluger, who represents Texas' 11th Congressional District and a supporter of the bill, co-wrote an op-ed for FOX News, saying that the bill would be the answer to stopping the "courtroom coup." The other side Critics of the bill say passage of H.R. 1526 would be a threat to the U.S. Constitution as well as the government's checks and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues the bill would limit courts from stopping unconstitutional actions. Mike Zamore, the ACLU's national director of policy and government affairs, is calling for the Senate to reject the bill. "If we want presidents to obey the law, courts need to be able to stop them when they're overstepping," Zamore said in a statement published on the ACLU's website. Another organization, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, also blasted the bill, saying it would enable a "Trump Takeover." "Congressional efforts that seek to undermine the independence and fairness of the judiciary are blatant attempts to appease a president who thinks he's king, and they seek to usher in autocracy in ways that should alarm everyone. The president and his enablers know what they're doing is unlawful, so they're trying to change the rules and the law," Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights senior director of the fair courts Lena Zwarensteyn said in a statement published on the organization's website. Zwarensteyn adds the bill is also a threat to democracy. "We need a powerful response in defense of our democracy, not lawmakers quickly changing the rules to benefit a lawless president who prizes loyalty and power over the rights of all of us. We urge the Senate to reject similar measures. Instead, lawmakers should focus on advancing proposals that will improve the judiciary for all people so that one day our courts will truly deliver equal justice for all," she said in a statement. What's next As mentioned earlier in this report, the bill awaits passage by the Senate. Should the bill pass on the Senate floor, it goes to President Trump's desk, where it could be signed into law. The Source This report used information provided by Congress' public records and statements issued by the Congress member who introduced the bill, Rep. Darrell Issa, and online statements published on American Civil Liberties Union and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights' webpages.
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump wants to rein in federal judges. One California Republican is already working on it
As court orders against his administration mount, President Trump has ramped up his attacks on federal judges in recent days, railing against their authority and calling for their impeachment. In particular, the president seems to have zeroed in on the idea of limiting federal district judges' ability to issue injunctions that have national implications. 'Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!' Trump posted Thursday night on his social media platform. 'These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.' While Trump rages on social media — going as far as calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit district courts' ability to grant injunctions — one California Republican in Congress is working to rein in the judges who are checking Trump's powers. Rep. Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, last month to limit federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, curtailing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district. Issa's legislation has gained traction among several prominent Republicans — including the president, who is determined to advance his anti-immigration agenda despite setbacks in the courts. Read more: Under threat from Trump, Columbia University agrees to policy changes 'You can't stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench who has no idea what's going on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,' Trump said Friday from the Oval Office. In Washington, where Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Issa's bill reflects a broader push by Republicans to clamp down on the judiciary, which has proved to be the only arena where Trump is encountering consistent opposition. Following Trump's lead, some Republicans are targeting judges they deem 'activists' for impeachment. Elon Musk, one of the president's closest advisors and the subject of several court cases himself, echoed those calls last week, posting on X, 'This is a judicial coup.' In the myriad court cases Trump faces for his dozens of sweeping executive orders and actions since taking office in January, perhaps the most pointed rebuke came earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ordered the government to turn around planes carrying immigrants for deportation. The planes landed at their destination in El Salvador, and the judge has been tussling with the president's lawyers about whether they defied his order. The episode escalated Democratic concerns that the Trump administration may refuse to follow a judge's orders, launching a 'constitutional crisis' and threatening American democracy. For Republicans, Boasberg's order became another notch in a long line of judicial attacks against Trump. "The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president's ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,' Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. 'This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.' Boasberg, the judge who tried to block the flights of Venezuelan immigrants that ultimately landed in a San Salvador prison, was appointed to the Superior Court by President George W. Bush and elevated to the federal bench by President Obama. Many other judges who have stymied Trump's efforts — such as the banning of transgender troops from the military or attempts to cripple the U.S. Agency For International Development — were appointed by Democratic presidents. Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the power of district court judges to make rulings that are binding on a national level has vexed Democrats and Republicans for decades. In recent years, federal district and appellate courtsissued injunctions limiting portions of former President Biden's attempts to forgive student debt and parts of former Obama's Affordable Care Act. "This is actually a serious issue that has come up on a number of occasions on both sides of the aisle," Levitt said. "It's a little difficult to know how seriously to take this particular version because, depending on who tends to be in power at any given time, different members of Congress seem to really like or really hate these sorts of aggressive court action.' Read more: Hiltzik: Inside the tell-all book that Mark Zuckerberg is trying to suppress When introducing NORRA to the Judiciary Committee, Issa brought a chart showing the number of injunctions presidents have faced in office. In his first term, Trump received 64, far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). Trump already faces 12 injunctions in his second term, according to Issa's chart. 'The implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at the hearing. 'The reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States.' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Issa's bill was a "terrible idea" that would sow chaos in the federal courts. In practice, Chemerinsky said, the measure probably would create conflicting rulings between districts, making Americans subject to different rules in different parts of the country on complex issues including birthright citizenship or a transgender soldier's right to be in the military. 'If the Northern District of California issues an order telling a Cabinet secretary not to do something, the Cabinet secretary will say they're not bound by that order outside the Northern District of California," he said. Chemerinsky said the bill is a hammer in search of a nail, as national injunctions issued by district courts already have a limited effect. Such issues are often quickly appealed, and if a federal appellate court reverses the lower court judge, a case could then make its way before the U.S. Supreme Court. He did acknowledge, however, that the issuance of nationwide injunctions has become more prevalent as the nation's partisan divide grows sharper, with plaintiffs on both ends of the political spectrum "judge shopping" for ideological allies on the bench. 'Conservatives in the Biden administration continually went to courts in Texas to get injunctions, and liberals have done that in the Trump administration," he said. Republican lawmakers eager to defend the president have leapt to support the legislation. It sailed out of the House Judiciary Committee, which Issa sits on, in early March and is expected to reach the House floor for a vote soon. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), another ardent Trump supporter in Congress, announced Thursday that he also would bring legislation in the Senate to limit nationwide injunctions. 'You can feel when momentum is coming for a bill you're working on,' said Jonathan Wilcox, Issa's spokesperson. 'When the White House is aligned, the Senate's involved, leadership's positive. You don't get that every day.' Issa's legislation marks how Republicans have come to completely align themselves behind the president since he first took office in 2017. At the time, Issa, a conservative representing California's southwestern corner, broke with his party to join with Democrats in calling for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Issa faced a few tough challengers in elections since, but handily won the 48th Congressional District seat in November with 59% of the vote. He has since positioned himself as one of the president's staunchest allies in California. Earlier this month, Issa said he would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his support — and his chart — Issa insisted during the committee hearing that NORRA was not about Trump. 'We are not passing a law for the current occupant of the White House,' Issa said. 'We are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch, and the reasonable challenges to actions by an executive branch, now and for the rest of the many years of our great republic.' Issa's bill also includes an amendment from Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former attorney general of Kansas, that would allow for a case brought by states and involving multiple districts to be reviewed by a three-judge panel, with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court. Levitt questioned the practical ability of Issa's measure to cure Trump's frustrations with district judges' actions on his executive orders. The exception cited in Issa's bill refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that gives federal courts oversight with respect to the actions of federal agencies, Levitt said. Read more: 'Freaked out': Fear, uncertainty grip California's immigrant community as Trump rolls out crackdown plan When plaintiffs sue to block actions implemented by executive order, they're actually suing the agency tasked with carrying out the president's direction — agencies that judges could still enjoin under the Administrative Procedure Act, Levitt said. In cases that have recently infuriated Trump — such as the judges' orders blocking his push to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process, or to eliminate birthright citizenship — Levitt said Issa's bill would have no effect, since the defendants in those cases would be Cabinet-level agencies that are subject to the APA. Although Levitt didn't think Issa's bill would achieve the weakening of judiciary power that Trump seems to desire, he did warn that Republicans are walking a path they could regret when they're the minority party again and in need of injunctive relief. 'Do you object in the same way to the super conservative rulings that affected the Biden administration in the same way that you are protesting here?' Levitt asked. Chemerinsky said Issa's bill is more concerning at a time when the Trump administration seems set on weakening the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. 'You have a president who is simultaneously trying to define presidential powers more broadly than anyone has in U.S. history," he said. "This bill is trying to take away a check on that power in this crucial moment.' Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants to rein in federal judges. One California Republican is already working on it
WASHINGTON — As court orders against his administration mount, President Trump has ramped up his attacks on federal judges in recent days, railing against their authority and calling for their impeachment. In particular, the president seems to have zeroed in on the idea of limiting federal district judges' ability to issue injunctions that have national implications. 'Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!' Trump posted Thursday night on his social media platform. 'These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.' While Trump rages on social media — going as far as calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit district courts' ability to grant injunctions — one California Republican in Congress is working to rein in the judges who are checking Trump's powers. Rep. Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, last month to limit federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, curtailing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district. Issa's legislation has gained traction among several prominent Republicans — including the president, who is determined to advance his anti-immigration agenda despite setbacks in the courts. 'You can't stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench who has no idea what's going on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,' Trump said Friday from the Oval Office. In Washington, where Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Issa's bill reflects a broader push by Republicans to clamp down on the judiciary, which has proved to be the only arena where Trump is encountering consistent opposition. Following Trump's lead, some Republicans are targeting judges they deem 'activists' for impeachment. Elon Musk, one of the president's closest advisors and the subject of several court cases himself, echoed those calls last week, posting on X, 'This is a judicial coup.' In the myriad court cases Trump faces for his dozens of sweeping executive orders and actions since taking office in January, perhaps the most pointed rebuke came earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ordered the government to turn around planes carrying immigrants for deportation. The planes landed at their destination in El Salvador, and the judge has been tussling with the president's lawyers about whether they defied his order. The episode escalated Democratic concerns that the Trump administration may refuse to follow a judge's orders, launching a 'constitutional crisis' and threatening American democracy. For Republicans, Boasberg's order became another notch in a long line of judicial attacks against Trump. 'The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president's ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,' Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. 'This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.' Boasberg, the judge who tried to block the flights of Venezuelan immigrants that ultimately landed in a San Salvador prison, was appointed to the Superior Court by President George W. Bush and elevated to the federal bench by President Obama. Many other judges who have stymied Trump's efforts — such as the banning of transgender troops from the military or attempts to cripple the U.S. Agency For International Development — were appointed by Democratic presidents. Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the power of district court judges to make rulings that are binding on a national level has vexed Democrats and Republicans for decades. In recent years, federal district and appellate courtsissued injunctions limiting portions of former President Biden's attempts to forgive student debt and parts of former Obama's Affordable Care Act. 'This is actually a serious issue that has come up on a number of occasions on both sides of the aisle,' Levitt said. 'It's a little difficult to know how seriously to take this particular version because, depending on who tends to be in power at any given time, different members of Congress seem to really like or really hate these sorts of aggressive court action.' When introducing NORRA to the Judiciary Committee, Issa brought a chart showing the number of injunctions presidents have faced in office. In his first term, Trump received 64, far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). Trump already faces 12 injunctions in his second term, according to Issa's chart. 'The implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at the hearing. 'The reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States.' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Issa's bill was a 'terrible idea' that would sow chaos in the federal courts. In practice, Chemerinsky said, the measure probably would create conflicting rulings between districts, making Americans subject to different rules in different parts of the country on complex issues including birthright citizenship or a transgender soldier's right to be in the military. 'If the Northern District of California issues an order telling a Cabinet secretary not to do something, the Cabinet secretary will say they're not bound by that order outside the Northern District of California,' he said. Chemerinsky said the bill is a hammer in search of a nail, as national injunctions issued by district courts already have a limited effect. Such issues are often quickly appealed, and if a federal appellate court reverses the lower court judge, a case could then make its way before the U.S. Supreme Court. He did acknowledge, however, that the issuance of nationwide injunctions has become more prevalent as the nation's partisan divide grows sharper, with plaintiffs on both ends of the political spectrum 'judge shopping' for ideological allies on the bench. 'Conservatives in the Biden administration continually went to courts in Texas to get injunctions, and liberals have done that in the Trump administration,' he said. Republican lawmakers eager to defend the president have leapt to support the legislation. It sailed out of the House Judiciary Committee, which Issa sits on, in early March and is expected to reach the House floor for a vote soon. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), another ardent Trump supporter in Congress, announced Thursday that he also would bring legislation in the Senate to limit nationwide injunctions. 'You can feel when momentum is coming for a bill you're working on,' said Jonathan Wilcox, Issa's spokesperson. 'When the White House is aligned, the Senate's involved, leadership's positive. You don't get that every day.' Issa's legislation marks how Republicans have come to completely align themselves behind the president since he first took office in 2017. At the time, Issa, a conservative representing California's southwestern corner, broke with his party to join with Democrats in calling for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Issa faced a few tough challengers in elections since, but handily won the 48th Congressional District seat in November with 59% of the vote. He has since positioned himself as one of the president's staunchest allies in California. Earlier this month, Issa said he would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his support — and his chart — Issa insisted during the committee hearing that NORRA was not about Trump. 'We are not passing a law for the current occupant of the White House,' Issa said. 'We are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch, and the reasonable challenges to actions by an executive branch, now and for the rest of the many years of our great republic.' Issa's bill also includes an amendment from Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former attorney general of Kansas, that would allow for a case brought by states and involving multiple districts to be reviewed by a three-judge panel, with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court. Levitt questioned the practical ability of Issa's measure to cure Trump's frustrations with district judges' actions on his executive orders. The exception cited in Issa's bill refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that gives federal courts oversight with respect to the actions of federal agencies, Levitt said. When plaintiffs sue to block actions implemented by executive order, they're actually suing the agency tasked with carrying out the president's direction — agencies that judges could still enjoin under the Administrative Procedure Act, Levitt said. In cases that have recently infuriated Trump — such as the judges' orders blocking his push to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process, or to eliminate birthright citizenship — Levitt said Issa's bill would have no effect, since the defendants in those cases would be Cabinet-level agencies that are subject to the APA. Although Levitt didn't think Issa's bill would achieve the weakening of judiciary power that Trump seems to desire, he did warn that Republicans are walking a path they could regret when they're the minority party again and in need of injunctive relief. 'Do you object in the same way to the super conservative rulings that affected the Biden administration in the same way that you are protesting here?' Levitt asked. Chemerinsky said Issa's bill is more concerning at a time when the Trump administration seems set on weakening the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. 'You have a president who is simultaneously trying to define presidential powers more broadly than anyone has in U.S. history,' he said. 'This bill is trying to take away a check on that power in this crucial moment.'
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New bill threatens to cripple 'judicial tyranny' from derailing Trump's agenda at every turn
FIRST ON FOX: GOP Rep. Darrell Issa has introduced a bill aimed at preventing federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions with the sole purpose of derailing a president's political agenda, which Issa says has been the case since President Donald Trump was sworn in. The legislation, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), amends Chapter 85 of title 28, United 5 States Code by adding a "Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief." "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court," the legislation states. Dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions and individuals have launched more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20 in response to his more than 60 executive orders, as well as executive proclamations and memos, Fox News Digital reported earlier this month. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos Issa says NORRA would limit the scope of nationwide injunctions by preventing federal judges from issuing injunctions that extend beyond parties directly involved in a case, while also ensuring that any injunction restricts only the specific parties requesting relief, regardless of whether the injunction involves outright enforcement of actions or policy actions. Read On The Fox News App "The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people," Issa told Fox News Digital, adding that the current judge-shopping climate in the United States amounts to "judicial tyranny" and a "weaponization of courts." Issa's office told Fox News Digital they are optimistic that this is a bill that will pass through Congress with Republican support and be signed by President Trump, adding that the bill has "maximum momentum." Dems Likely To 'Waste Millions' On Deluge Of Lawsuits But Could Cost Trump Precious Time: Expert "Nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States," Issa posted on X last week. Issa's bill comes as the Trump administration has publicly pushed back against the flurry of injunctions from courts across the country. "Many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing last week. "I've been hearing those words a lot lately, but in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority." "We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits," she continued. "This is part of a larger concerted effort by Democrat activists, and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump."Original article source: New bill threatens to cripple 'judicial tyranny' from derailing Trump's agenda at every turn
