Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says

[Elderberry]

Daily Caller by Kevin Daley 5/8/2018

    Vice President Mike Pence announced that the administration will look for opportunities to challenge nationwide injunctions before the Supreme Court. 
    Such orders have obstructed the Trump administration’s agenda in a number of areas.
    Though such injunctions have angered Trump loyalists, conservative litigators employed them against former President Barack Obama. 

The Trump administration is searching for an appropriate case in which to ask the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions, Vice President Mike Pence announced Wednesday in Washington at a Federalist Society conference.

Nationwide injunctions, in which federal trial judges bar the federal government from enforcing a law or carrying out a policy across the entire country, have beset President Donald Trump since he took office. District courts have blocked administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.

“In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court — to ensure that decisions affecting every American are made either by those elected to represent the American people or by the highest court in the land,” Pence added.

Attorney General William Barr is involved in the effort, a source with knowledge of the process told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The solicitor general, who represents the U.S. government before the justices, answers to Barr.

More: https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/08/scotus-nationwide-injunctions/

[rustynail]

Too late.  Federal Judge rules all.

[Bigun]

The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.

[Wingnut]

The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.

 

[Sanguine]

BKMK

[skeeter]

The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.

Yep. Let the runt tyrants enforce their own fake mandates.

[Cyber Liberty]

Way overdue.

District Judges, as a group, have forgotten their "bosses" are not on the SCOTUS, their courts are created by Congress.  This may require an Act of Congress to stop it.

[rangerrebew]

The Administration Is Right to Challenge Nationwide Injunctions by District Court Judges

By Dan Cadman on May 14, 2019

In a speech before the Federalist Society several days ago, Vice President Pence announced that the administration would be developing and pursuing a strategy to attack the legal basis for nationwide injunctions issued by U.S. District Court judges:

    "The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it's imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation," Pence told the conservative lawyers group.

    "In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court — to ensure that decisions affecting every American are made either by those elected to represent the American people or by the highest court in the land," Pence added.

https://cis.org/Cadman/Administration-Right-Challenge-Nationwide-Injunctions-District-Court-Judges

[Elderberry]

Common thread:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,361089.0.html

Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says
« on: May 09, 2019, 06:28:39 AM »   

Daily Caller by Kevin Daley 5/8/2018

    Vice President Mike Pence announced that the administration will look for opportunities to challenge nationwide injunctions before the Supreme Court.
    Such orders have obstructed the Trump administration’s agenda in a number of areas.
    Though such injunctions have angered Trump loyalists, conservative litigators employed them against former President Barack Obama.

[Sanguine]

The Administration Is Right to Challenge Nationwide Injunctions by District Court Judges

By Dan Cadman on May 14, 2019

In a speech before the Federalist Society several days ago, Vice President Pence announced that the administration would be developing and pursuing a strategy to attack the legal basis for nationwide injunctions issued by U.S. District Court judges:

    "The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them — and it's imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation," Pence told the conservative lawyers group.

    "In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court — to ensure that decisions affecting every American are made either by those elected to represent the American people or by the highest court in the land," Pence added.

https://cis.org/Cadman/Administration-Right-Challenge-Nationwide-Injunctions-District-Court-Judges

This absolutely needs to happen.

[truth_seeker]

This absolutely needs to happen.

Please notify Weld and Amash to support this in their platforms.

[Free Vulcan]

No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.

[Bigun]

 

No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.

   and  again!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think there's a good chance that the majority says this is a problem that should be fixed by Congress.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think there's a good chance that the majority says this is a problem that should be fixed by Congress.

I think you're correct:  All courts lower than the SCOTUS are under the purview of Congress.  They are not creatures of the Judicial Branch.

[Bill Cipher]

No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.

Define “jurisdiction”, particularly with respect to a court.

[txradioguy]

Define “jurisdiction”, particularly with respect to a court.

Surely you're not REALLY that Obtuse.

[Bill Cipher]

Surely you're not REALLY that Obtuse.

Thank you for the personal attack. 

No, I’m not obtuse.  “Jurisdiction” is a lot more than mere geographic boundaries.  look up so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” to see what I mean.  Or “stream of commerce” jurisdiction.  Then there is “in personam” jurisdiction and “in rem” jurisdiction to consider. 

It is a complicated issue. 

[jpsb]

The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.

In another time maybe, to do that today would get Trump impeached and maybe even convicted.

[jpsb]

No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Thank you for the personal attack. 

No, I’m not obtuse.  “Jurisdiction” is a lot more than mere geographic boundaries.  look up so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” to see what I mean.  Or “stream of commerce” jurisdiction.  Then there is “in personam” jurisdiction and “in rem” jurisdiction to consider. 

It is a complicated issue.

Exactly. I don't think a lot of non-lawyers have a good grasp of that.

The problem with asking the Court to do this on its own is that there are multiple ways it could be done, none of which are mandated by the Constitution.  If the Court says "only the Supreme Court can grant nationwide injunctions", then you'd probably have to give the Supreme Court original, direct jurisdiction over all such cases.  They'd all have to be filed initially in the Supreme Court itself because of the emergency nature of the relief often being sought.  That could easily overburden the Court -- and such over burdenning might even be a deliberate tactics adopted by activists.

Another way to do it -- and this would be my preference -- is that district court orders for national injunctions would be stayed pending affirmance by the corresponding Court of Appeals.  Any such injunctions affirmed by the Court of Appeals would be effective immediately, but the Supreme Court would be required to consider expedited/emergency appeals by the Federal Government.

But honestly, I think it is up to Congress to decide that.  Although I guess I'm not wedded to that, and maybe there's a good argument for the Supreme Court to be able to devise that remedy itself.

@Bill Cipher

[txradioguy]

Thank you for the personal attack.

That wasn't a persOnal attack.  Quit being such a snOwflake.

No, I’m not obtuse.  “Jurisdiction” is a lot more than mere geographic boundaries.  look up so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” to see what I mean.  Or “stream of commerce” jurisdiction.  Then there is “in personam” jurisdiction and “in rem” jurisdiction to consider. 

It is a complicated issue.

It's only complicated to Liberals who want everything either overturned if it doesn't go in their favor or enforced it it does...by what was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government.

The judicial branch has usurped powers it was never designed to have.

But that's how Liberals like yourself want it since most of your Socialist measures you want to impose on us never pass muster at the ballot box.

[txradioguy]

Exactly. I don't think a lot of non-lawyers have a good grasp of that.

The problem with asking the Court to do this on its own is that there are multiple ways it could be done, none of which are mandated by the Constitution.  If the Court says "only the Supreme Court can grant nationwide injunctions", then you'd probably have to give the Supreme Court original, direct jurisdiction over all such cases.  They'd all have to be filed initially in the Supreme Court itself because of the emergency nature of the relief often being sought.  That could easily overburden the Court -- and such over burdenning might even be a deliberate tactics adopted by activists.

Another way to do it -- and this would be my preference -- is that district court orders for national injunctions would be stayed pending affirmance by the corresponding Court of Appeals.  Any such injunctions affirmed by the Court of Appeals would be effective immediately, but the Supreme Court would be required to consider expedited/emergency appeals by the Federal Government.

But honestly, I think it is up to Congress to decide that.  Although I guess I'm not wedded to that, and maybe there's a good argument for the Supreme Court to be able to devise that remedy itself.

@Bill Cipher

And this kind of legal jujitsu is why average Americans detest lawyers and don't trust the court systems.

That and the nose in the air arrogance of the quip about "most non-lawyers don't grasp that".

[jpsb]

And this kind of legal jujitsu is why average Americans detest lawyers and don't trust the court systems.

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And this kind of legal jujitsu is why average Americans detest lawyers and don't trust the court systems.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it "legal jujitsu".  It's a very basic understanding of how the federal court system works, with most law students learning that in the first week.  Nothing tricky.

That and the nose in the air arrogance of the quip about "most non-lawyers don't grasp that".

It's funny when non-lawyers complain about that type of arrogance.  Because when it is aircraft mechanics, oil well workers, structural engineers, accountants, or whomever, those people routinely shoot down opinions by lay people who are offering opinions in a field in which they lack the requisite technical knowledge.  But when a lawyer gets "technical", it's arrogance.

The vast majority of private sector lawyers are not responsible for the ridiculous complexity of modern law.  Many of us argue against it, and try to have it changed.  But in lieu of that, we have to learn and understand the system so that we can actually work within it.  That's no more "jujitsu" than is replacing a turbine engine on a jet.