Republicans Push for Legislative Fix to Nationwide Blocks on Trump Agenda

Democrats countered during an April 1 hearing that Trump is threatening the judiciary’s independence and separation of powers.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) arrives for a House Republican caucus meeting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 14, 2023. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Republican members of Congress have been pushing for legislation that would prevent federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions—a form of court intervention that has drawn increased scrutiny in recent years.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, said during a subcommittee hearing on April 1 that judges were exceeding their authority.

“Activist district court judges [are] usurping themselves with their Article 3 power and imposing, on the nation, injunctions beyond the scope of what the United States Congress under statute has given federal judges,” he said.

Issa and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have introduced bills designed to limit injunctive relief. Grassley, who introduced his legislation on March 31, was expected to chair a hearing on the issue on April 2.

During the House hearing, congressional Democrats accused Republicans of overstating President Donald Trump’s authority and alleged that Trump was receiving so many judicial roadblocks because his agenda was exceeding the limits of his power.

“Somehow ... we are here today to talk about the overreach of the federal courts, not the overreach of the executive branch official who is doing the overreaching,” Ranking Democrat Member Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said.

On March 28, the Congressional Research Service said it had identified 17 cases in which federal courts have issued nationwide injunctions during Trump’s second term. The first three years of the Biden administration saw 14 nationwide injunctions, according to the Harvard Law Review.

One of the witnesses at the April 1 hearing, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, warned the committee of a potential “judicial coup d'état” with nationwide injunctions that he said “seized control of various executive branch duties.”

By contrast, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Kate Shaw told the panel that the premise of the hearing—that judges had exceeded their authority and that this called for some response—was “badly mistaken.”

Venezuelan Gang Deportations

Much of the hearing centered on one particular legal challenge: the public battle with a federal judge over Trump’s decision to use the Alien Enemies Act as a basis for deporting members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.

Cindy Romero, a Colorado resident whose apartment complex was allegedly taken over by Tren de Aragua, spoke as a witness during the April 1 hearing. She told the subcommittee members that she wanted Congress to “stop wasting tax dollars trying to interrupt [Trump] and what he’s doing.”

Tension between Trump and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, erupted in March when Trump called for his and other judges’ impeachment. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to respond with a statement released after Trump’s remarks on Truth Social.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Gingrich, apparently referring to Roberts’ statement, said on April 1 that Roberts was being “a little bit silly” in mentioning the appeals process. He suggested that Roberts should establish a rule that any nationwide injunction from a district court would be immediately suspended and taken up by the Supreme Court.

“An appeals process can run so long that the damage has already been done by the time you go through the appeal,” Gingrich said. “And so I think in some form, if we’re going to retain the ability of district judges to issue any injunction, it has to be modified.”

The Supreme Court is reviewing Trump’s appeal in the Alien Enemies Act case and various others, including one in which Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the court to say “enough is enough” with the lower courts’ increasing use of nationwide injunctions.

“Only [the Supreme Court’s] intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” she said.

It is unclear how the Supreme Court will rule, but the justices have offered differing opinions.

Judicial Authority

According to a study in the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years. Most come from judges appointed by a president from whatever party does not control the White House.

The trend, the study found, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” the practice of strategically filing lawsuits before judges whom plaintiffs view as more favorable to their cases.

One question that could arise in challenging either Grassley’s or Issa’s legislation is the scope of Article 3, which generally grants federal courts the power to decide cases.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times that there was “no clear-cut answer” on whether Congress could limit nationwide injunctions or if that authority was inherent in Article 3.

“On one hand, Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts because they’re created by statute,” he said. “But there is an argument that courts have equitable powers and Congress limiting injunctions infringes upon the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.”

Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm told The Epoch Times that “if nationwide injunctions are, in fact, permitted by Article 3, then I would still think that Congress could limit the jurisdiction of district court judges by removing their power to enter nationwide injunctions.”