Free Republic

SummaryTrump order targeted children of certain immigrants Three judges issued orders blocking policy nationwide Administration challenges nationwide injunctions WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled on Thursday over Donald Trump's attempt to broadly enforce his executive order to restrict birthright citizenship, a move that would affect thousands of babies born each year as the Republican president seeks a major shift in how the U.S. Constitution has long been understood.The court's conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, seemed willing to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, as federal judges in Maryland,...

Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation. The case is the consolidation of three matters: Trump...

During Supreme Court oral arguments in the Trump v. CASA, Washington, and New Jersey cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a surgical takedown of the legal rationale for nationwide injunctions, using just one line.The case centers around whether lower courts can issue sweeping injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, even when only a handful of plaintiffs are before the court. Representing the United States, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that such broad orders violate established legal norms and Supreme Court precedent.“We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirtz in...

Bills would check district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions like those issued against President Trump’s executive orders.. In the opening three months of President Trump’s ambitious “flood the zone” second term, we have witnessed activist federal courts issue a tsunami of national injunctions against the executive branch. Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., recently described the third branch’s overzealous blocking of Trump’s executive orders as a “judicial coup d’etat.” The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports there had already been at least 17 national injunctions against the Trump administration between Inauguration Day and March 27 — on everything from the firing of federal...

Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson 🚨BREAKING: The U.S. House passes HR 1526, restricting district rogue court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. 7:00 PM · Apr 9, 2025

“For more than two centuries,” the chief justice wrote, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” With that statement, the chief justice revealed not only that he suffers from the very self-aggrandizement plaguing the lower court judges but that he is either willfully blind to the brewing fire or lacks the will to put it out. Apparently, he is content to let it spread — digging in, defending courts acting lawlessly, and deferring to the “process.” At the same time, he...

Here is a long take on the court injunction crisis, which is less crisis than an opportunity… OK, stop panicking about all the stupid legal decisions from leftist judges that the left is getting from judge shopping in leftist jurisdictions. Stop. Panicking. First, no one should be surprised by any of this. The administration certainly isn’t. We always knew exactly what they would do. Do not take the fact they are not screaming and yelling as them rolling over. They are not rolling over. There’s plenty going on behind the scenes as administration lawyers prepare their papers for the legal...

Lawyers representing President Trump and the office of the presidency have filed an urgent response motion to remove a court order by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer that blocked the Treasury Secretary and “political appointees” from accessing Treasury Department systems. [SEE ADMINISTRATION FILING HERE]The filing is in response to District Judge Engelmayer’s blatant effort to engage in judicial activism and violate the Article II separation of power. The Chief executive cannot be limited in scope or activity by the judicial branch, let alone a single circuit court judge within the regional judicial branch who is attempting to block the executive...

Liberals control the legal profession, from the law schools and litigious nonprofits to the bar associations and judges (including many Republican appointees). Judicial supremacy, implemented through “universal injunctions,” allows any liberal legal group to tap one of 670 district judges in 94 district courts to decide on a broad range of public policies, which the political elite then treat as “law.” The good news: Evidence seems to suggest that at least three Supreme Court justices intend to end this irrational practice. We might only have three justices on our side, but governors should still firmly reject overreaching judges who believe...

Washington, DC  ~  Wednesday, February 12, 2020 Remarks as Prepared for DeliveryThank you for the introduction, Dean Morrison.  I’d also like to thank ACUS for inviting me to speak, and Deputy Attorney General Rosen for his important remarks and leadership on this issue. As Dean Morrison mentioned, I am the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Policy at DOJ.  I am grateful to be here to discuss the Department of Justice’s position on nationwide injunctions. Across administrations of both parties, the Department of Justice has taken the position that nationwide injunctions are improper.  The Obama Administration argued forcefully against them,...

Washington, DC  ~  Wednesday, February 12, 2020 Remarks as Prepared for DeliveryThank you, Dean Cass.  Thank you also to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), George Washington Law, and the ABA Section of Administrative Law for inviting me to speak today.  I also want to thank ACUS Vice Chair and Executive Director, Matt Wiener, who also recently spoke at the Department of Justice’s Summit on Modernizing the Administrative Procedure Act.Today’s topic of nationwide injunctions is both important and timely.  Many observers have commented on this issue with a focus on legal and policy concerns, and you will hear...

When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case. Over the past several decades, however, some lower court federal judges have increasingly resorted to a procedural device—the “nationwide injunction”—to prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone in the country. Shrewd lawyers have learned to “shop” for a sympathetic judge willing to issue such an injunction. These days, virtually every significant congressional or presidential initiative is enjoined—often within hours—threatening our democratic system and undermining the rule of law. During the eight years of the...

SEATTLE - A federal judge says police in Tukwila acted unconstitutionally when they arrested an illegal immigrant and turned him over to immigration authorities for deportation. Wilson Rodriguez Macareno, who is originally from Honduras, called police early last year about someone trespassing in his yard. The officers instead arrested him based on indications he was in the country illegally and brought him to a detention center for deportation. U.S. District Judge Richard Jones ruled Wednesday that the local police did not have the authority to arrest him for a civil, federal violation. He said a trial will be held to...

Vice President Mike Pence announced that the administration will look for opportunities to challenge nationwide injunctions before the Supreme Court. Such orders have obstructed the Trump administration’s agenda in a number of areas. Though such injunctions have angered Trump loyalists, conservative litigators employed them against former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration is searching for an appropriate case in which to ask the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions, Vice President Mike Pence announced Wednesday in Washington at a Federalist Society conference. Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out...

Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump. The administration's move — aimed at pushing back at unfavorable decisions from lower courts across the country — would set the stage for a vast legal debate and battle over the role that national injunctions play in the courts. Pence argued to supporters at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society that the Trump administration has been “unfairly” targeted by injunctions issued by lower courts, saying the rulings have prevented...

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Saturday slammed “activist judges,” whom he accused of overreaching and paralyzing the government by shutting down Trump-era policies they object to via nationwide injunctions. At a Federalist Society event at Georgetown University, Sessions blasted judges who have shut down controversial Trump-era policies such as denying funding for so-called “sanctuary cities” and repealing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. “The court is not superior; the court does not get to have the final word in every dispute, give me a break,” he said. He said the vehicle of choice for "activist judges" is nationwide...

On Thursday afternoon, in a back room of Parliament, history was made. A few MPs found themselves a backbone; they found a way in which they could exercise their Freedom of Speech and perform their ancient duty, drawn from the Bill of Rights 1688, of redressing the grievances of the citizens who rely on them. They were warned first to ‘be careful’: I remind Members of the importance of privilege, which we have here in Westminster Hall as in other parts of Parliament, but Members should always exercise their rights with care, particularly when naming individuals, and should avoid intrusion...