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."
“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.”
“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.”
Good.
Is there a statute that says courts havew nationwide jurisdiction? Why not just ignore it?
Barr has been turning the wheels to make this happen. The idea that one STATE COURT can rule for all States is absurd.
Now it just needs to get through the House and matched with a similar Senate bill, thence to The Donald’s desk
Doubt this would get through he democrat controlled House, but try it.
Right arm! Right arm!
I believe District Courts are Federal, not state.
A better approach, IMO, would be to hold judges, whose rulings are overturned, to much tighter scrutiny, and level hefty penalties for abuse.
At minimum, a three strikes rule, where if overturned 3 times by a higher court, they’re out, done being a judge, anywhere.
This should be addressed by SCOTUS. There is no Constitutional warrant for inferior courts to enjoin the whole country.
Correct...but they only effect states within their limits.
I’m sick of these traitorous commie judges.
The House needs to revert to GOP control next year or everything DJT proposes will be stonewalled.
Don’t need a bill, just need the Supreme Court to end it... Not against the bill, but the Supreme Court itself should have shut this crap down when it started 50 years ago.
There certainly seems to be an imbalance of power with the power in favor of the judiciary. Any single, lower level judge can overrule a decision by the POTUS. There are hundreds of lower level judges each with their own political preferences.
These rulings all should have been ignored. These districts courts do not have authority over the entire country. No law is needed, ignore their rulings. Proposing legislation only works to give the appearance that these rulings are legitimate, they aren’t.
"An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction." Wikipedia
If Trump judicial appointees start issuing injunctions against "sanctuary city" measures, expect it to happen in a heartbeat.
Since when should a pipsqueak of a Judge have so much power? He should be charged with abuse of authority and over-reaching.
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.