Opponents of President Donald Trump’s executive order indefinitely halting refugee resettlement in the U.S. rally on the steps of the federal courthouse in Seattle on Feb. 25, 2025, after a judge issued a ruling blocking the president’s order. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard)
WASHINGTON — Amid dozens of injunctions placed against the Trump administration, Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary discussed a bill Wednesday to curb the nationwide effects of those orders from federal judges.
The bill, sponsored by GOP Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who leads the committee, would prohibit district court judges from issuing injunctions that have nationwide effects.
“We all have to agree to give up the universal injunction as a weapon against policies we disagree with,” Grassley said. “The damage it causes to the judicial system and to our democracy is too great.”
As of Friday, 39 judges who were appointed across “five different presidents and sitting in 11 different district courts across seven circuits” have ruled against the Trump administration, said one of the witnesses, Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center.
President Donald Trump and Republican allies in Congress have complained that such injunctions give judges in single districts too much power to stymie the administration’s agenda.
Trump has also taken to social media to attack the judges, especially one who temporarily barred use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to quickly deport Venezuelan nationals.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Tuesday that Republicans are considering Grassley’s bill, but did not commit to bringing it to the floor for a vote.
House Republicans have introduced a similar bill.
Senate Democrats criticized the hearing and argued that the reason there are so many injunctions against the president’s executive orders is because they are unconstitutional.
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, pointed to the several nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, which the administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court in an emergency request to reverse.
Republicans see abuse
Republicans characterized the flurry of injunctions against administration actions as judicial activism.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said the injunctions were unprecedented.
Hawley called the rulings from district courts a “pattern of abuse.” He added that it’s not only being done with nationwide injunctions, but with temporary restraining orders.
Florida Sen. Ashley Moody also took issue with temporary restraining orders, which generally are not appealable.
“There is keen interest in making sure our judiciary system remains impartial and that it is making rulings only in terms of relief to the parties before it and that we are encouraging expeditious resolution of these extraordinary important matters,” Moody said.
Criticism sparks threats, Dems say
Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island raised concerns about the increased threats of violence aimed at judges.
Whitehouse said the reaction from Republicans about preliminary injunctions against the Trump administration puts those judges and their families at risk.
“The discomfort to fury…about decisions against the Trump administration may actually have a lot to do with the unprecedented lawlessness and lawbreaking of the Trump administration rather than a weird cabal of judges trying to intrude,” Whitehouse said.
Klobuchar said that Trump has attacked judges on social media and has posted images of himself wearing a crown.
“We do not live in a kingdom,” she said. “It is important that we not lose sight of the underlying cause of these injunctions. It is not that these judges are ‘crooked’ or ‘lunatics’ or ‘evil.’ Those are words used by the president, it is because the administration is violating the constitution.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 issued a rare statement, pushing back against Trump’s suggestion that a judge who issued an injunction against an administration order face impeachment.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Jennifer Shutt contributed to this story.
This post was originally authored and published by Ariana Figueroa from AZ Mirror via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
