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 best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.
The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.
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.
No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.
I think there's a good chance that the majority says this is a problem that should be fixed by Congress.
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 “jurisdictionâ€, particularly with respect to a court.
Surely you're not REALLY that Obtuse.
(https://vettingroom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/us-court-of-appeals-and-district-court-map_svg_.jpg)
The best opportunity is to just ignore these district court rulings and proceed as if nothing has happened.
No govt entity should ever be allowed to enforce anything outside their jurisdiction. This should have been shut down with the very first one.
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.
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
And this kind of legal jujitsu is why average Americans detest lawyers and don't trust the court systems.
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".
That wasn't a persOnal attack. Quit being such a snOwflake.
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.
Define “jurisdictionâ€, particularly with respect to a court.
Please explain how any of those types of jurisdictions apply to nationwide injunctions.
Please explain how any of those types of jurisdictions apply to nationwide injunctions.
I'm sure someone has argued before some of these courts that immigrants themselves are part of the stream of commerce. The whole "minimum contacts" analysis accepts as a premise that the vast majority of an entity's operations can be outside a particular state, but jurisdiction still lies.
What is really needed are different jurisdictional rules for when the federal government is a party to a case versus when we're talking about a private company that has national operations. Maybe there's a good constitutional argument for why that is true already, though I haven't yet read it. Still seems the proper route for this is for the Congress to use its power under Article III, Section 1 to more clearly delineate exactly how much judical power each "inferior court" should have. I'd honestly consider that a huge priority that should have been handled while the GOP still controlled both houses of Congress.
But maybe the Supreme Court will step in anyway.
Because they all give a state or federal district court the power to issue judgments against persons who are not physically present within the geographic limits applicable to that court. In a suitable case, the only reasonable remedy might be a national injunction.
Don’t introduce issues you don’t want to deal with. Jurisdiction is a complicated subject.
As I said above, I have no problems with the Supreme Court reviewing the issue and putting tighter constraints on them. I have issues with people who, for partisan political purposes, try to pretend that it’s just a simple case of bad judges illegally usurping authority they don’t have.
Thank you for making my argument. The nationwide injunctions recently issued against various policy positions by the Trump admin were way outside a district court's authority, particularly the travel ban as it pertained from those coming into this country from other nations, as ultimately proved by the SCOTUS.
Not necessarily.
But then again, I suppose you vigorously opposed the national injunctions that were issued against the Obama administration, didn’t you.
Actually yes.
I am not saying that national injunctions should become the order of the day, but they are not unheard of and are not ipso facto a usurpation or authority.
And yet they HAVE become the order of the day.
How can it nOt be a usurpation of Executive branch power when they are overstepping their reach to stop something the President is by design of the three branches of Government allowed to do?
Actually, I think it was that because immigrants were free to travel across state lines that an injunction limited to, say, Texas would be an ineffective remedy if an immigrant who was in Texas, and a beneficiary of the ruling, subsequently moved to a different state. I think that was part of the rationale in the fifth circuit.
I agree that tighter controls need to be placed to limit when a district court, in particular, can issue a national injunction.
If they’re being applied overbroadly, then they can and should be reined back in. That’s what the tiered court system is for; it’s very good at policing itself. If the Supreme Court can’t rein it in, then congress can always legislate limits. Again, that’s the way the system is supposed to work.
And it is very much the business of the courts to determine when the executive has overstepped its bounds, and to fashion a reasonable remedy for the damage caused by the executive’s overstepping. That is the “checks†part of the checks-and-balances system of government.
That part is relatively simple.
Except the President hadn’t overstepped any boundaries of his executive branch powers. Especially with the ban in immigrants from terror sponsoring nations.
The only ones who stepped out of bounds were the Obama appointed Progressive judges who decided they...not the President or Congress get to set immigration policy.
That’s the open question. The court decided he had. That is the job of the courts.
That’s the open question. The court decided he had. That is the job of the courts.