Tag Archives: Executive Branch of Government

The End Of Nationwide Injunctions?

Posted on by

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article about a case the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing on Thursday.

The article notes how the political opponents of President Trump have repeatedly used the courts to try to prevent him from implementing his agenda:

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch.  That’s more than one a month.  By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit.  And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless.  Not surprisingly, I disagree.  And I would point out that the only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld…

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

The article reports:

And the era of nationwide injunctions could come to an end later this week when the Supreme Court hears a case on birthright citizenship. The case probably won’t decide whether birthright citizenship is legal under the 14th Amendment. What the case is really about is the nationwide injunctions different courts have used to block Trump’s executive order on the topic.

I firmly believe that one of the things President Trump is trying to do is to bring America back to the country our Founding Fathers created. We have wandered so far from our Constitution that the road back is going to be bumpy and clogged by people who are making too much money the way things currently are. It would be wonderful if President Trump could bring us closer to the system of government our Constitution created.

The Future Of The DOGE Cases

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the court cases the Democrats have created to slow the project of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The article reports:

Attorney Alan Dershowitz said Monday that many of the injunctions blocking actions by President Donald Trump, ranging from his executive orders to his efforts to address wasteful and fraudulent spending, will be thrown out on appeal.

The Trump administration is appealing injunctions imposed by federal judges that targeted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship, among others. Dershowitz said during “The Dershow” that the cases will eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Nobody ever said that our system of checks and balances would make it easy to govern or would make it efficient to govern. No, no, the design of our system of checks and balances was to create enough power to govern effectively while, at the same time, denying any one part of our government enough power to create a tyranny. So we have to counter our system of checks and balances, and it’s working, even today, as we speak,” Dershowitz said. “The president issues executive order after executive order after executive order, and what do the states do? They get their attorneys general to bring a lawsuit.”

The article concludes:

“People keep forgetting, the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy, the alphabet agencies. They are not an independent branch. They are part of the executive, and the executive is the president. Now, it’s complicated, because Congress created many of these agencies,” Dershowitz said. “For example, you know some of them, Federal Communications Commission, federal security, federal drug, those are created by Congress, but they’re part of the executive department. Some of the people are confirmed by Congress, and so your argument is you can’t fire them, only Congress can unconfirm them, but that’s never been the rule. For example, the head of the FBI is confirmed, and all cabinet members are confirmed by the Senate, yet the president can fire any of those heads of agencies at his whim. He doesn’t even have to have a reason to do it.”

I wish Congress and the judges would read the Constitution and decide to follow it.