- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search



Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


Trump Looks to Stop Nationwide Injunctions

President Trump's policies have been targeted by activist judges at the lower court level who have been appointed by Democrats. Now, he is looking to strip them of their power to issue nationwide injunctions.



According to Town Hall:

The Trump administration is looking to outflank the activist Left on by curtailing the power of injunctions from lower district court judges. In most cases, Obama appointees have hamstrung constitutional and proper actions issued by this White House. Two of the most significant have been the executive order on immigration, which the Left erroneously calls the “Muslim ban,” and the rollbacks to the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals—the latter of which was already constitutionally questionable under Obama. The executive gave an order and they can rescind it. The courts have tried to block it. And the Trump White House has had enough.


The plan for this was set into motion last year. Now, the Trump administration has reiterated the call to rein in these judges from district courts. Vice President Mike Pence said these judges were “unfairly” targeting Trump polices. He’s not wrong. The Supreme Court ruled definitively that the executive order on immigration was well within the parameters of the executive. Still, the Left throws a tantrum. Too bad—elections have consequences. With this move on the lower courts, you can bet liberal America is going to go bananas (via The Hill)...




Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who has been vocal in his opposition to national injunctions, said such sweeping orders “take the courts outside of their constitutional role.”




Couldn’t agree more. This is going to be another major legal fight, but for now—the Trump administration has to worry about the Democrats’ impeachment crusade that has zeroed in on his personal income tax returns.

It is also argued that the district courts are designed to rule on matters affecting specific parties and not the nation as a whole. This is a powerful argument and one the Supreme Court might have to be the ultimate decider on.