Josh Hawley wants to hand Donald Trump one weapon to smack down activist judges
Three Key Takeaways:
- Senator Josh Hawley is pushing a bill to curb the abuse of nationwide injunctions by activist District Court Judges, aiming to prevent them from blocking President Trump’s agenda across the entire country.
- The No Rogue Rulings Act, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa, seeks to limit the reach of lower court rulings and restore balance between the branches of government.
- Legal scholars and experts argue that Congress has the power to rein in District Courts and restrict nationwide injunctions, providing a more effective solution than pursuing impeachment.
Activist judges are illegally blocking Donald Trump’s agenda.
He wants to go on the offensive.
And Josh Hawley wants to hand Donald Trump one weapon to smack down activist judges.
Congress can rein in activist judges without impeachment
Activist District Court Judges have declared themselves the supreme authority for decisions like national security, foreign affairs, and staffing the executive branch over President Donald Trump.
Trump’s agenda is being ground to a halt by an avalanche of injunctions and temporary restraining orders by local judges that affect the entire country.
He faced more restraining orders in February than former President Joe Biden did during the first three years of his term.
Republican Members of Congress have introduced Articles of Impeachment against activist judges.
U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) wants to get to the source of the problem.
He announced that he wanted to “stop the abuse” of nationwide injunctions by District Court Judges with a new bill.
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, which restricts District Court Judges from issuing rulings that affect the entire country.
“It’s never been more obvious that parts of our federal judiciary have a major malfunction of judicial activism,” Issa said. “Practically every week, we see yet another federal judge issuing yet another nationwide injunction in yet another gambit to stop President Trump from exercising his Constitutional Article II powers and carrying out the policy agenda he promised the American people he would make a reality.”
The bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on a 14-9 vote.
South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman said the Supreme Court dropped the ball in stopping nationwide injunctions.
“The Supreme Court should have addressed the issue of nationwide injunctions a decade ago,” Blackman said. “But the Court keeps kicking the can down the road. Congress should take a close look at how to ensure courts are properly exercising their jurisdiction.”
Judges are upending the theory of three co-equal branches of government
Heritage Foundation legal scholars Paul Larkin and Giancarlo Canaparo argued that the country’s more than 670 District Court Judges have used nationwide injunctions to “temporarily on a par with the Supreme Court of the United States because each one can halt a practice nationwide unless and until a higher court revises, reverses, or vacates its order or Congress modifies the underlying substantive law.”
District Courts are a creation of Congress and they have the power to rein them in by limiting their powers and jurisdiction.
Article III of the Constitution only mentions the Supreme Court.
University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds claimed this was a better strategy than focusing on impeachment.
“Impeachment is hard, there’s no way the Republicans will get 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal, and history suggests — from Bill Clinton through two different attempts on Donald Trump — that failed impeachment efforts leave their targets stronger, not weaker,” Reynolds wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t taken action to stop this abuse of power by District Court Judges.
That leaves it up to Congress to control the courts they created.
Posts
