GOP bill would ban nationwide court injunctions

[mystery-ak]

GOP bill would ban nationwide court injunctions
by Melissa Quinn
 | September 10, 2018 11:47 AM

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has introduced legislation that would stop federal courts from issuing sweeping orders that block the enforcement of federal policies across the country directed by both Republicans and Democrats.

Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act late last week. The committee is expected to mark up the bill this week, according to Goodlatte’s office. It held a hearing examining the impact of nationwide injunctions in November.

If the legislation is passed and signed into law, injunctions issued by a federal court could extend only to the parties before it, not to the entire nation.

“The Constitution gives courts the authority to decide cases for the parties before them, not to act as super-legislators for everyone across the country based on a single case,” Goodlatte said in a statement. “It simply cannot be the law that opponents of government action can seek a preliminary injunction and lose in 93 of the 94 judicial districts, win one injunction in the 94th, and through that injunction obtain a stay of government action nationwide despite it being upheld elsewhere.”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gop-bill-would-ban-nationwide-court-injunctions

[Fishrrman]

Get this passed.

Of course, some federal judge will then be found to declare it unconstitutional.

Then... push it upward.
Let the Supreme Court rule... one way or the other.

I've got a feelin' that the Supremes don't care much for young turk federal judges who think that they (and not the High Court) can set national policy (as Clarence Thomas was alluding to).

Let's make them take a stand on it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's a great idea, but they should tweak it a bit.  District courts could still  issue nationwide injunctions, but they would not be effective until affirmed by a Circuit Court.  And any such affirmance becomes appealable immediately to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether it is temporary or permanent.   You also could make it that the Supreme Court is required to hear such cases on an expedited basis.

But it's perfectly constitutional to do that.  Article III delegates all that authority expressly to Congress.

[truth_seeker]

Better late than never.