On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill aiming to curtail federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide restraining orders — an action that, if successful, would flout hundreds of years of judicial case law and precedent.
Judges have always had the power to impose nationwide injunctions on local, state or federal governments and other entities, but such actions were rare during the first half of the country’s history. The practice became more common in recent years, during the presidencies of Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, with each of those presidents facing multiple lawsuits blocking their actions nationally while in office.
Trump has had the most nationwide injunctions placed against him due to his presidential decrees oftentimes flatly violating the law or U.S. Constitution — for example, three federal judges this year alone have placed injunctions on his ability to enforce an executive order to redefine the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
While blatantly improper orders like those have been blocked, Trump loyalists have errantly claimed that so-called “activist judges” on the left have chosen to stymie the president’s agenda for political reasons — ignoring the fact that right-wing judges (including some Trump himself picked) have also issued injunctions against the president.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (California) authored a bill entitled the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” which would restrict judges’ rulings to only apply to the litigants directly included in the lawsuit — under the bill’s terms, only a plaintiff could receive relief from a judgment against a presidential administration, even if the underlying reason for that judgment is that the law or order at issue is unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced on anyone.
Like other Trump loyalists, Issa justified his legislation by claiming that “activists” are trying to stop Trump for political reasons.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” Issa said in a statement promoting his bill.
Republicans passed the bill on a party-line vote on Wednesday. Democrats opposed to the measure pointed out that injunctions on Trump’s presidential actions are happening because they are clearly out of line with the Constitution and other laws or case precedent.
“Here’s a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) said. “Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable.”
“If it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said.
Some Democrats pointed to the Republicans’ hypocrisy in passing the bill, as many current GOP lawmakers were celebratory when nationwide injunctions blocked actions by Biden and Obama.
“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last four years? Where were they?” said Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colorado). “Nowhere to be found. Spare me the feigned indignation.”
The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration, where it faces steep odds of passage due to the Senate filibuster. Seven Democratic senators would have to join with all Republicans in that chamber in order to pass the bill.
Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has frequently sued to stop executive orders by the Trump administration in recent years, condemned the passage of the bill.
“The House majority tonight voted for another step towards unchecked presidential power,” Zamore said in a statement, noting that during the COVID pandemic, several nationwide injunctions were issued against Biden, just as nationwide injunctions are now being enforced against Trump.
“This isn’t a partisan question. If we want presidents to obey the law, courts need to be able to stop them when they’re overstepping,” Zamore added.
Angry, shocked, overwhelmed? Take action: Support independent media.
We’ve borne witness to a chaotic first few months in Trump’s presidency.
Over the last months, each executive order has delivered shock and bewilderment — a core part of a strategy to make the right-wing turn feel inevitable and overwhelming. But, as organizer Sandra Avalos implored us to remember in Truthout last November, “Together, we are more powerful than Trump.”
Indeed, the Trump administration is pushing through executive orders, but — as we’ve reported at Truthout — many are in legal limbo and face court challenges from unions and civil rights groups. Efforts to quash anti-racist teaching and DEI programs are stalled by education faculty, staff, and students refusing to comply. And communities across the country are coming together to raise the alarm on ICE raids, inform neighbors of their civil rights, and protect each other in moving shows of solidarity.
It will be a long fight ahead. And as nonprofit movement media, Truthout plans to be there documenting and uplifting resistance.
As we undertake this life-sustaining work, we appeal for your support. Please, if you find value in what we do, join our community of sustainers by making a monthly or one-time gift.
Read full article at source
exeter.one newsbite last confirmed 1 week ago by Chris Walker
Stay informed about this story by subscribing to our regular Newsletter
