When District Judges Try to Run the Country

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 17, 2018 | Jason L. Riley

[reaganaut1]

When a federal district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction in 2015 that halted the implementation of President Obama’s amnesty program for illegal-alien parents of U.S. citizens, many on the political right cheered. Two years later, when a federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide injunction that blocked President Trump’s efforts to place restrictions on transgender people serving in the military, it was the left’s turn to celebrate.

In recent years national injunctions have somehow become all the rage, even though it’s not clear they are constitutional. Traditionally, an injunction requires the parties in a case—and only those individuals—to continue or cease particular actions. What makes national injunctions distinct and controversial is that they apply to people who are not parties in the case. And state attorneys general now regularly use them as political cudgels to thwart the implementation of federal policy not just in their respective states, but everywhere.

The Trump administration, for example, has tried to withhold funding from “sanctuary” cities that refuse to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement. After Chicago sued, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois not only issued an injunction but said it applied to other cities all over the country, which are not parties in the case.

The issue here is not the wisdom or silliness of a given federal policy. The bigger concerns are the scope of lower-court judges’ authority and the integrity of the judicial process. Under the Constitution, lower courts are empowered to decide cases for particular parties, not for the whole nation. In his concurrence last month in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas expresses skepticism that district courts have the authority to issue national injunctions

[rb22982]

Good article - this has not been covered enough by the MSM. When a single, non-elected judge is deciding law for the entire country, we have a big problem.

[ClearCase_guy]

Clarence Thomas should be given the chance to knock this type of thing down.

[Socon-Econ]

This issue has been neglected for way too long. Needs to be pushed by conservative legal groups — that have not become too cowed.

[Biggirl]

That is why we have to get Justice Brett online.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“”” In his concurrence last month in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the administration’s travel ban, Justice Clarence Thomas expresses skepticism that district courts have the authority to issue national injunctions.”””

---

Justice Clarence Thomas is a man of few words. So when he says that District Court Judges may be exceeding their Constitutional Authority, we all should take notice.

When Kavanaugh gets on the bench, the Supreme Court may have the votes to curtail District Court Judges from ‘legislating’. And that would be a good thing to force Congress to take action instead of kicking the proverbial can down the road.

[gibsonguy]

Make no mistake. The real reason the left is going to fight Kavenaugh With everything they’ve got is to keep the SC at 4-4 until next year. Renegade judges can run wild and the 9th circus can set precedent.

[M-cubed]

4-4 is good only till Buzzy Ginsberg croaks......then it can stay 4-3 for awhile and see how they like it

[zeugma]

Here's the relevant bit from Justice Thomas' concurrence in the Trump vs. Hawaii immigration case...

Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.

[Biggirl]

In regards to Justice Brett, fighting him, what is seen as a done deal.

[Jacquerie]

Congress has Article III authority to take care of the problem. Of course, it isn’t in its interest to do so.

Thank the 17th Amendment.

[Impy]

What’s you guy’s take on the successful nomination of Hawaii RINO Mark Bennett with 27 Republicans voting against, and Senator Tim Scott torpedoing the nomination of Ryan Bounds?

[LS]

Scott and Rubes waited until Bounds was out of the judiciary committee before “voicing their concerns.” That was low-ball and slimy.

Meanwhile, Bennett clerked for Clarence Thomas. Yeah, that sounds RINO-ish.

[Impy]

Did he (Bennett)? I’m not familiar with him but my friend told me he “defended aggressive anti-2nd amendment laws, among other things” as Hawaii AG.

As for Senator Scott, I’m really disappointed, he seems to have a touch of the snowflake.

[Impy]

I can’t find a thing about Mark Bennett having clerked for Thomas. He clerked for District Court Judge Samuel Pailthorpe King.

He is a Federalist Society member though.

Here’s something from the GOA opposing him.

https://gunowners.org/alert51618.htm

27 Republicans voted against him

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00145

[BillyBoy]

Judge Bennett should have just told the U.S. Senators his "judicial philosophy" is "originalist". According to FReepers, it doesn't matter how conservative the judge's actual beliefs are, or ANYTHING he's done in the past. The sole thing that matters if whether he says he's "originalist". And if he's "originalist", it would magically ensure he will ALWAYS vote the right way in the future.

Powerful stuff, that amazing "originalist" elixir!

[BillyBoy]

At the 0:30 mark —
What FReepers THINK happens when a judge claims their “judicial philosophy” is “originalist” and THEN has to deal with a case that could overturn liberal precedents:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcOrSWr2HLU

At the 0:40 mark —
What REALLY happens when a judge claims their “judicial philosophy” is “originalist” and THEN has to deal with a
case that could overturn liberal precedents (as evidenced by the last 40+ years of “strict constructionist” appointments):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSZhFuGrOA

[LS]

Look at the yea/nay list. All over the map. Flakey and Cruz, Scott and Cotton all voted against him.

[LS]

Scott voted against Bennett as did Flakey.