Does SCOTUS have any recourse to reigning in rogue lower courts usurping its authority? Otherwise I am afraid there is no downside to a district court announcing the Emergency is unconstitutional, just to make news....
Sorry.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised concerns Tuesday about the increasingly common use of nationwide injunctions issued by federal trial court judges to block laws and policies.
It has been a favorite tactic of liberal activist groups that fancy themselves part of the so-called resistance confronting President Donald Trump. If plaintiffs can get a U.S. District Court judge to grant an injunction and apply it nationwide, they can gum up Trump’s policies for months or longer — even if they ultimately lose the underlying case.
In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious,” the justice wrote. “If federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty-bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”
Some legal scholars have argued that it is improper for a single federal judge to block government action far beyond his jurisdiction except in extraordinary cases.
https://www.lifezette.com/2018/06/justice-thomas-warns-against-power-grab-by-district-courts/
Yes. It is called a write of mandamus.
They can vacate it. It hasn’t been done for any of the unconstitutional injunctions affecting Trump because John Roberts is a compromised ball gargler. A step and fetch it boy for the radical left.
If America had a congress as institutionally proud as our Framers intended, federal district courts wouldn’t stop President Trump at nearly every turn. Our system wasn’t designed for a complacent and neutered legislature that stands by and watches judicial usurpations and tyranny. On the contrary, the legislative power is the very essence of representative government and is in fact, superior in this sense to the other branches. When diminished, the executive (rule of one) or the judiciary (rule of the few) are sure to step in and fill the vacuum.