Latest news with #universalInjunctions


Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
JOHN YOO: Trump scores historic win as Supreme Court reins in lower courts' overreach
In Trump v. Casa, the United States Supreme Court finally put an end to the universal injunctions that trial judges had invented to block presidents from pushing their agendas nationwide. These orders, which courts applied with special vigor against President Donald Trump, "exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts," the 6-3 majority declared. Even though Casa resolved a question of technical legal procedure, it struck a balance between the Executive and Judicial branches of government that bore greater constitutional importance. Casa represented an undeniable victory for the Trump administration. In ruling against many of Trump's executive orders, district courts had used nationwide injunctions to halt such major initiatives as Trump's suspension of foreign aid, removal of illegal aliens from Venezuela, layoffs of federal bureaucrats, a bar on transgender soldiers, ending racially discriminatory programs in higher education, and cuts and freezes in federal spending. Trump is now free to enforce those policies in states where the courts have not enjoined them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict between the federal courts that have enjoined Trump's policies and those in other states that have not. But the legal, rather than the political, issue asks more narrowly how far a federal trial judge – of which there are almost 700 – may go in stopping government action he or she concludes violates the law. All agree that the trial court can grant relief to the parties in the courtroom. In Casa itself, federal judges in several cities ruled unconstitutional Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born on American territory whose parents were in the U.S. illegally. But rather than simply order the recognition of the citizenship of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, the courts forbade the Trump administration from pursuing the new policy throughout the entire nation. These lower court judges claimed a sweeping power that had never existed before in American history. Nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown until the 21st Century. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion made clear, the Framers would not have understood the Constitution's grant of power to the federal courts to resolve "cases or controversies" under federal law to include nationwide injunctions. As late as President Barack Obama's administration, it appears the lower courts had only issued about 19 such injunctions. In 2019, Attorney General William Barr stated that the federal courts had issued only 27 in the twentieth century. But by April 2024, 127 nationwide injunctions had been issued since 1963, with 96 packed into 2001 to 2023. There were six nationwide injunctions under the second Bush administration, 12 under Obama, a staggering 64 under the first Trump administration, and 14 from the first three years of Biden. As of the end of March, just 10 weeks into Trump's second term, federal judges had issued 17 such injunctions. The very fact that nationwide injunctions were little known to the lower federal courts until the present century undercuts the notion that they were understood by the Framers to fall with the "judicial power" of Article III of the Constitution. Nationwide injunctions violated not just the text, but also the structure of the Constitution. As the majority in Casa concluded, district judges were claiming a supremacy that ignored the equal role of the other branches of government in interpreting the Constitution. They threatened to transform the power of the federal courts to decide "cases or controversies" into a supervisory power to manage the workings of the government nationwide. In its deepest constitutional failure, the use of nationwide injunctions prevented the president from advancing his own reading of the Constitution. The Constitution does not establish any branch of the federal government as supreme in its interpretation. Instead, each of the branches must give meaning to our nation's highest law when they carry out their unique constitutional responsibilities. Judicial review, for example, emerges from the court's sole authority to decide "cases or controversies" arising under federal law. Congress interprets the Constitution when it decides whether to enact bills into law. Presidents give meaning to the Constitution when they veto legislation or "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." In the very first year of the Constitution, for example, President George Washington decided that the national bank was constitutional when he signed the legislation creating it. He interpreted the Constitution to vest the power over foreign policy in the executive branch when he decided to issue the Neutrality Proclamation. Later, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a re-authorization of the very same bank, even though Congress believed the law constitutional by passing it, two past presidents had signed earlier versions of the law, and the Supreme Court had upheld the law in McCullough v. Maryland. Jackson correctly argued that the Supreme Court could not force him to sign the law. He declared that "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution." In fulfilling its constitutional functions, Jackson believed, each branch has an equal and independent duty to decide upon the constitutionality of legislation. "The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges," Jackson declared. And, he emphasized, "on that point the President is independent of both." Abraham Lincoln went furthest in claiming that presidents had the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Constitution at odds with the view of the Judiciary. In his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued that the Dred Scott decision applied only to the parties in the case. The president had to obey the decision of the Court – which party won or lost the case. But the Court's logic and reasoning could not bind the president or Congress, which both had the right to interpret the Constitution too, or, ultimately, the people. "I do not deny that such decisions may be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit," Lincoln said in his first inaugural address. Decisions of the Court should receive "very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of government," he continued. But "if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court," Lincoln argued, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Casa honors Lincoln's understanding of the balance of power between the president and the Court. Under Lincoln's view, the president has the right to advance his reading of the Constitution even if a court has enjoined it elsewhere. While Lincoln conceded that he would obey judicial decisions, he argued that he could continue to enforce his policies against individuals outside the parties in Dred Scott. And Lincoln believed he had no constitutional obligation to apply Dred Scott to new cases. Judges would have to issue orders in each future case ordering him to return free blacks to slavery under Dred Scott. Casa rejects the notion that a single district court could force a president to obey its reading of the Constitution throughout the nation, even in cases not yet brought. A president may accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but in order to reach the Court, the president will test his reading of the Constitution in other courts. Armed with a nationwide injunction, a single judge who first decides an important constitutional issue effectively short-circuits the ability of other courts to examine the issue. But a president should have the right to go to the federal courts in other states; should the courts disagree, the Supreme Court can resolve the conflict. Nationwide injunctions prevented presidents from advancing their reading of the Constitution in other courts and ultimately bringing their policies to the Supreme Court quickly. Trump now has the opportunity to test the constitutionality of birthright citizenship (where I happen to think he is wrong) before the Justices, as is his right.

Washington Post
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Sen. Grassley: Rein in nationwide injunctions. Readers: No thanks.
Regarding the May 29 editorial, 'In defense of nationwide injunctions': The Post's Editorial Board argued that, in spite of the lack of historical precedent and constitutional basis for universal injunctions, this judicial maneuver is ostensibly a necessary 'check on presidential power.' But allowing district judges to exert bloated authority beyond the cases and controversies before them only creates further imbalance among the branches of government. The Post should have taken into serious consideration Article III of the Constitution, which limits courts to deciding 'cases' or 'controversies' — as well as the first 150 years of American history, during which time, as the board acknowledged, scholars have found no documented use of a universal injunction. It's not the judiciary's responsibility to set policy; that power is vested in the people through their elected leaders. For decades, Congress has failed to write specific legislation, leaving the door open for a variety of interpretations. Congress can and must pass clearer laws, but the legislative branch's past mistakes aren't a free pass for district judges to overstep constitutional guardrails and play policymaker. The continued use of universal injunctions does far more harm than good to our nation's system of checks and balances. What's more, injunctions place severe pressure on the Supreme Court by frequently forcing it to respond to emergency appeals. The bill I introduced to eliminate universal injunctions would instead encourage appropriate appellate action by making temporary restraining orders immediately appealable. In those cases where widespread judicial relief is appropriate, Congress has already provided a mechanism: class-action lawsuits. Courts should no longer be permitted to avoid the class certification process by opting instead for universal injunctions. I hope the Supreme Court steps in quickly to address injunctions. In the meantime, I'll keep moving my legislative fixes toward the finish line, including through reconciliation. I continue to encourage my Democratic colleagues to join me in this effort. Many Democrats have sharply criticized the practice in the past — including in the case of the mifepristone ban The Post's editorial referenced — but have shelved their opposition to universal injunctions since President Donald Trump returned to office. The Post itself argued for limiting injunctions in a separate editorial last June. The constitutional dangers posed by universal injunctions haven't changed over the past year; the only thing that has is the White House's current occupant. We shouldn't let politics overcome principle by failing to address this bipartisan problem now. Chuck Grassley, Washington The writer, a Republican, represents Iowa in the U.S. Senate and is chair of the Judiciary Committee. Not only does President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' now under consideration by the Senate, threaten to balloon the deficit, but its passage also heightens the risk that the United States could succumb to autocratic rule. Buried in this bill are provisions that make it easier for the administration to ignore court orders by limiting the courts' powers to hold the president and Congress in contempt for failing to abide by an order unless a plaintiff in a case posted a financial bond. This provision would apply for court cases not only going forward but also retroactively. Additionally, the bill would limit the judiciary's ability to implement nationwide injunctions for Trump's executive orders. Thus far, the courts have been the only branch of government that is effectively preventing Trump and his team from carrying out blatantly unconstitutional executive orders. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), several Democratic lawmakers correctly noted that provisions limiting the judiciary's power to enforce its orders 'would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance.' The drafters of the Constitution created three independent branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. This Republican Congress has abdicated its role of providing a check on the executive branch. The executive branch cannot be permitted to evade its obligations to follow the judiciary's orders. To permit such defiance would strike at the heart of the separation of powers that defines our Constitution and system of government. This bill should not pass for many other reasons, but lawmakers must not ignore these dangerous provisions. Jill Leiner, Baltimore As The Post noted in its editorial, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to decide the question of 'whether federal district judges went overboard in issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's executive order doing away with birthright citizenship.' It appears to me that the answer to the question should depend on the nature of the administration action being challenged in the cases before the district judges. In the cases the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to consider, the district judges reviewed a challenge to the administration's nationwide declaration and order that birthright citizenship will no longer be available to all babies born in the country. Three district court judges have held that this nationwide order is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The Trump administration can appeal these rulings and can ask for a stay of the rulings during appeals. But in the absence of a stay pending appeal, it seems that when district courts rule a nationwide executive order invalid, that necessarily means it is unconstitutional to enforce that order anywhere in the nation. Stated differently, all three courts have held that the defendant in the three cases — the U.S. government — has no authority at all to enforce its nationwide order. The courts' rulings, by the nature of both the executive order and the ruling against it, bar the government from enforcing its order anywhere in the nation. There is, therefore, no appropriate way to issue a localized injunction against nationwide orders such as the ones in the birthright citizenship cases. The Supreme Court established in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that it is the role of the courts to say what the law is. Once the courts have done so, all parties to cases before the courts must abide by the courts' rulings unless and until the rulings are stayed or overturned. That is how the rule of law works under our Constitution, and the Trump administration should be held accountable to it. Walter Smith, Washington The writer is a lawyer who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recently considered whether to put restrictions on the ability of lower-level judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This is an issue that has raised bipartisan concerns. On one hand, it doesn't seem right that a single district judge should have the power to dictate policy for the whole country while an issue works its way through the court system. On the other hand, there should be some safeguard so the government can't violate people's rights while the legal process is pending. Is there a principled solution to this problem? Here's a suggestion: The Supreme Court should allow a single judge to issue a nationwide injunction when doing so would uphold the status quo, but not when doing so would overturn the status quo. For instance, the status quo is that all children born in the United States have citizenship. The Trump administration is trying to change the status quo by declaring that children born in the U.S. to noncitizens should not be given citizenship. In this case, a single judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction to preserve the status quo until the courts definitively determine whether President Donald Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship is constitutional. As another example, the Biden administration tried to cancel student loan debt for millions of borrowers by reinterpreting existing law. The status quo was that these loans needed to be repaid. Given that, under the standard I am proposing, it was proper that a single judge could declare an injunction on this policy while the case was working its way through the courts. On the other hand, the plaintiffs in the Texas mifepristone case were trying to force the Food and Drug Administration to remove that drug from the market. The status quo was that the drug had been sold legally for many years. In this case, therefore, a judge should not have been allowed to issue a nationwide injunction, since that would have immediately overturned the status quo before the case had made its way through the legal system. Creating a bias in favor of the status quo appears to be the right way to balance the need to protect rules and rights that people have long relied on while still allowing challenges to the status quo to succeed in the long run if they have constitutional merit. John Shea, Ellicott City Got brickbats, bouquets or brilliant headline ideas for The Post? Join Ryan Vogt and the rest of the Letters and Community team for the next Free For All live chat at 1 p.m. on June 25. Submit your questions here: