-PJ
Posted on 09/12/2019 10:54:52 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) introduced legislation Wednesday to end nationwide injunctions after a California judge took action to stop a change in the Trump administration's asylum policy from going into effect.
The legislation, titled the "Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act," would prevent individual district court judges from issuing nationwide halts to new policies.
Earlier this week, a California district court judge reinstated a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration's new asylum policy, which halted its implementation. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judge's decision Wednesday and allowed the policy to go into effect.
Cotton and Meadows blasted "activist" and "unaccountable" district judges in a press release about their bill.
"This legislation would restore the appropriate role of district court judges by prohibiting them from issuing nationwide injunctions broader than the parties to the case or the geographic boundaries of the federal district in which the judge presides," they wrote.
A similar bill in 2018 proposed prohibiting judges from issuing sweeping injunctions against the nationwide implementation of federal laws. It did not gain sufficient legislative momentum. Now, Meadows and Cotton are attempting to push through legislation of their own echoing criticisms made by Attorney General William Barr in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Last week, Barr argued for putting an end to nationwide injunctions in the article. He criticized injunctions for creating "an unfair, one-way system in which the democratically accountable government must fend off case after case to put its policy into effect, while those challenging the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge."
Both Cotton and Meadows echoed Barr's criticisms.
"In the past few years, we’ve seen an explosion of activist forum shopping and nationwide injunctions to thwart the administration’s priorities and grind government to a halt," Cotton said in the release. "This bill will restore respect for the system of government outlined in the Constitution by limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by district court judges."
Meadows also blasted individual activist judges, and added it "makes zero sense for the legality of a nationwide law to rest entirely on the opinion of one judge, or one district court."
"A district court in California should not be given sweeping authority to issue a ruling—let alone on dubious legal reasoning—striking down policy from a duly elected President," he said. "Current law inadvertently empowers detrimental judicial activism, and it needs to change."
Here’s a good example.
The official told the Daily Caller, “Today, the Trump Administration announced its repeal of President Obama’s oppressive WOTUS regulation. For years, this rule has been used by government agencies to punish farmers and private land owners with out-of-control fines and imprisonment for simply working to protect or better their property. This is another promise kept for our farmers and ranchers as President Trump continues to remove crushing regulations from the American people.”
The Trump administration initially tried to re-write the WOTUS rules in 2018, but they were blocked by a court injunction
https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/12/trump-epa-clean-water-regulation-rollback/
Of course they waited until the Dems have the house when it has no hope of passing. Had 2 years to do it but did not.
“I believe District Courts are Federal, not state.”
District decisions are binding only in that district.
The President could just ignore these unconstitutional edicts from petulant dictators in black robes. It really is that simple.
I was responding to Sacajaweau’s use of the word “state”:
Barr has been turning the wheels to make this happen. The idea that one STATE COURT can rule for all States is absurd.
Congress should simply strip all lower courts from hearing any challenge to any executive order. Make any challenge go directly to the Supreme Court.
Out of session, too. And by way of a 7-2 vote.
The Courts will find this bill unconstitutional.
But it only applied to that one issue.
Bingo. Also, IMHO, John Roberts could inform lower court judges they don’t have the authority.
But rats like preventing PDJT from rescinding Bammy’s executive orders, so the Cotton/Meadows bill will go nowhere.
Its judicial tyranny. Thank the 17th.
-PJ
They should add that a state that wishes to sue the Federal government must file the suit in their own federal district. This would eliminate the judge shopping that blue states use to avoid a Federal district court in their district that is conservative. In other words, Indiana should not be allowed to join a suit in California concerning a government policy/regulation. They would have to file in their own district. That way the USSC gets several different decisions and different facts that would have been presented during trial, (Indiana in this example), that may not be presented in a trial in the other district, (California).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.