Josh Hawley Lays Out ‘No-Brainer’ Way To Rein In Rogue Judges

Daily Caller ^ | March 24, 2025 | Mariane Angela

[McGruff]

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News Monday that it’s time to curb the powers of activist district courts.

“The key thing to do here, Laura, is to end the ability of these district courts to abuse their judicial authority by issuing these so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley told host Laura Ingraham. “I don’t think they have that authority, properly speaking, under the Constitution, Article III. What they’re doing is they’re purporting these judges, they’re purporting to go out, and to bind parties and individuals who aren’t before them [in their districts].”

Hawley said such actions exceed their constitutional authority.

We have never seen anything like this in American history. It’s incredibly abusive, and Congress ought to end it, and we can end it by just saying, ‘No nationwide injunctions by these district courts.'”

“The Constitution expressly gives to Congress the ability to create the lower courts. The lower courts are not in the Constitution, per se. Congress has the ability to create them, to govern them. I don’t believe that under Article III, these district courts even have the power to issue these nationwide injunctions

[Bernard]

So can Hawley write a bill that can be passed into law, or just talk?

[brownsfan]

“So can Hawley write a bill that can be passed into law, or just talk?”

I’m going to go with “just talk”.

[lurk]

Hawley is sharp and articulate.

So far that’s all he is.

Throw something on the table Senator.

[odawg]

“So can Hawley write a bill that can be passed into law, or just talk?”

With Congress, it is always just talk, although what he says is true. It could be done in a day’s time, if they chose. But I once saw David Brinckly wryly observe that it takes Congress 30 days to make instant coffee.

[ComputerGuy]

The idea of letting the judiciary decide what it can and cannot do is laughable. That is reserved for Congress.
Our distinctly American criminal class.

[nwrep]

Just talk.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Hawley is wrong on this. The Constitution expressly gives to Congress the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and that's all it says. The only extent to which the Constitution limits the jurisdictional reach of those other courts established by Congress is by whatever jurisdictional limits the Constitution applies to the Supreme Court as well.

So, there are three possibly legitimate arguments to make about why district courts don't have the power to issue national injunctions:

1) No federal court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to enjoin the actions of the Executive Branch;

2) District courts are violating higher court precedent by issuing national injunctions, or;

3) There is a statute enacted by Congress that limits the jurisdiction of federal district courts.

But Hawley's argument that the Constitution limits district courts specifically is just wrong.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

This parakeet dance needs to be shut down yesterday.

Congress has the Constitutional power to defund all inferior courts and reopen some or all with staff changes.

Tainted judges get laid off. Good judges get rehired.

Senate Filibuster? Maybe. It might be a big fight but if not now, when? When could the stakes be higher?

[Psalm 73]

Hawley is a smart dude, but I would defer to Senator Mike Lee on ANY Constitutional issue.

[bantam]

EXACTLY!!!
THEN DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[9YearLurker]

Did he give Issa credit for introducing such a bill?

[Owen]

It cannot get 60 votes.

[neverevergiveup]

But I once saw David Brinckly wryly observe that it takes Congress 30 days to make instant coffee.

Yes. If someone was going to tell you that you only have 6 months to live you'd want it to be a Congressman, because that would mean 6 years.

[hanamizu]

So can Hawley write a bill that can be passed into law, or just talk?

---

He can, but practically speaking, such a bill should be introduced in the House where there is no threat of filibuster; dems in the Senate can kill such a bill with just the threat. If such a bill were to pass the House, the dem Senators would be under some (but likely not enough) pressure to cave.

After all, these nation-wide injunctions are all the dems have going for them now. And, of course, any defiance of an injunction will be their grounds for yet another impeachment of Trump.

[LS]

I’m sorry, but Congress is now utterly irrelevant. In the hands of the DemoKKKrats, the House can manage to pass highly partisan bills & impeachements, but not in the hands of the Rs.

Too many people like St. Thomas Massie who have “muh principles.”

The Senate is meaningless until or unless we get about 70 votes to overcome MurCowSki and Collins in 2/3 overrides.

[sheana]

#2. Their jurisdictional limits are in their tiles. District. District court judge. They can’t/shouldn’t rule on anything out of their districts.

[Texas Fossil]

Ted Cruz

[richardtavor]

A bill was just approved out of committee and will be voted on in the next week or two. I have not read it but will look for it.

[RoosterRedux]

This won't work.

Such a bill would require 60 Senate votes to overcome a filibuster—a threshold that's highly improbable.