Photo credit: www.yahoo.com
President Donald Trump and several of his close supporters have raised questions about the legality of recent court orders that have impeded his administration’s agenda. They have previously praised similar rulings by federal courts that temporarily halted initiatives from President Joe Biden, referring to them as “great news” and “brilliant” decisions.
In one prominent instance, a federal judge in Texas blocked a pause on deportations by the Biden administration just days after Trump’s inauguration. This prompted aide Stephen Miller to celebrate the ruling as “great news” on social media. Similarly, when a Louisiana judge prohibited Biden officials from requesting that social media platforms remove specific content, Trump termed it “amazing.”
In a speech in Florida in 2023, Trump declared, “Just last week, in a historic ruling, a brilliant federal judge ordered the Biden administration to cease and desist from their illegal and unconstitutional censorship in collusion with social media.” However, the Supreme Court later sided with Biden on this matter.
Trump’s presidency has been met with numerous preliminary rulings that have hindered attempts to end birthright citizenship, reorganize leadership within independent government agencies, and withhold legislated funding. These rulings are preliminary and have been issued to give courts the necessary time to evaluate the laws in question.
Even so, these initial rulings have significant practical implications, fueling arguments from Trump’s supporters that his critics are strategically selecting judges to halt his initiatives—much as conservatives did during Biden’s tenure.
These temporary judicial orders, often handed down by a single federal judge but with far-reaching effects, are now under scrutiny by Trump and his supporters. Vice President JD Vance, an attorney and Yale alumnus, voiced his objections on social media, asserting that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Trump echoed this sentiment during an appearance on the “Mark Levin Show,” stating, “Judges should be ruling. They shouldn’t be dictating what you’re supposed to be doing.”
Miller, who has labeled recent judicial setbacks against Trump as “tyrannical,” remains a controversial figure, having actively sought similar legal actions against Biden.
In the wake of Trump’s first term, Miller established America First Legal, an organization that persistently litigated against Biden’s Covid-19 policies, immigration measures, and the termination of Trump-appointed officials from government agencies.
Concerns about blanket orders blocking an administration’s initiatives are not new; they have been raised by presidents from both parties, numerous Supreme Court justices, and legal scholars. The most notable instances often involve politically sensitive issues, complicating rational discourse on the scope of judicial power and the issuance of broad injunctions.
Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, emphasized that a legislative solution would necessitate setting aside partisan biases to address the root of the issue effectively. He noted that the prolonged delay in the Supreme Court’s attention to this matter is puzzling.
Bray suggests the ongoing judicial challenges against the Trump administration could serve as a catalyst for the Supreme Court to engage with these pressing issues.
There is speculation whether Trump’s mounting frustrations might prompt Congressional action towards court reforms that were previously dismissed as partisan exaggeration.
Addressing Court Overreach
Trump’s remarks, alongside those of Vance, have triggered widespread dialogue regarding the president’s respect for the judicial system and the constitutional separation of powers. They also spotlight a protracted conflict over nationwide injunctions that extend beyond the involved parties.
Research indicates that courts imposed 14 nationwide injunctions blocking Biden’s executive actions within the first three years of his presidency, as referenced in a Harvard Law Review article. Notably, during Trump’s first administration, the judiciary issued more than four times that many injunctions.
Former Attorney General William Barr, who served under Trump, expressed strong disapproval of nationwide injunctions, asserting in a 2019 op-ed that allowing one judge to wield such significant authority circumvents standard judicial procedures. In the twilight of Biden’s term, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the Supreme Court to consider constraining such orders, arguing they can disrupt the implementation of laws. The court, however, opted not to act on this appeal.
There is renewed speculation that ongoing litigation surrounding Trump could present an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on these matters.
According to Paul Grimm, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School, “Sometimes an issue has developed to where it’s at a tipping point and something needs to be done.” He alludes to the current judicial climate as a potential moment for the court to reassess and articulate its perspectives on this contentious issue.
Recent debates led by the Supreme Court’s justices, particularly in a case concerning Idaho’s stringent ban on gender-affirming care for minors, indicate an increasing judicial engagement with injunction-related discussions. Ultimately, the court allowed Idaho’s ban to remain in place, overturning a lower court’s expansive injunction.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recognized the complexity surrounding universal injunctions, indicating the contentious nature of the subject. Justice Neil Gorsuch, supported by other conservative justices, emphasized the critical nature of the ongoing debates about temporary court orders, pointing to the rapid and sometimes chaotic nature of their assessments.
Gorsuch remarked that while eliminating universal injunctions may not resolve all judicial challenges, it would help align federal courts closer to their traditional limitations.
The Question of Judicial Integrity
Concerns regarding the potential for “judge shopping,” where litigants deliberately seek out accommodating judges to secure favorable rulings, are inherently tied to critiques of broad temporary injunctions.
The federal judiciary has made some efforts toward curbing such practices, although these initiatives have encountered pushback and varied success.
In recent discussions, Sebastian Gorka, who held a position within Trump’s initial White House and has been appointed again, described an Obama-appointed judge as a “rogue judge.” Meanwhile, he praised a nationwide injunction against Biden’s vaccination mandate, positing that it demonstrated federal judicial intervention against presidential overreach.
Trump himself has repeatedly acknowledged temporary restraining orders that have successfully blocked policies proposed by the Biden administration.
In 2022, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Biden administration from concluding the Title 42 program, a rule facilitating expedited migrant removals. Trump lauded this ruling, expressing gratitude towards the judge, who he had nominated during his initial administration.
Responding to comparisons between the judicial orders impacting the Biden administration and those affecting Trump, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields stressed that, “It’s simple: Biden abused his executive power to implement policies not within the scope of his presidential powers, while President Trump is appropriately using his executive authority to implement his America First agenda.”
Despite Trump’s mounting criticism of the federal judiciary, it remains consistent with the longstanding practice of administrations—regardless of political affiliation—to challenge unfavorable rulings through the appropriate appellate processes.
In light of the uproar surrounding Vance’s recent comments, Trump assured reporters that he remains committed to respecting judicial rulings, stating, “I always abide by the courts.”
Source
www.yahoo.com