Sport Investors League
  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Business

Sport Investors League

  • Politics
  • Stocks
  • Investing
  • Business
Politics

SEN JOHN KENNEDY: Why SCOTUS should seize opportunity to eliminate universal injunctions

by admin May 15, 2025
May 15, 2025
SEN JOHN KENNEDY: Why SCOTUS should seize opportunity to eliminate universal injunctions
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the argument in a series of cases that ask the court to decide whether individual district court judges can unilaterally stop the federal government from enforcing a law or policy nationwide. The court should jump at the chance to end this practice.

Normally, when a district court sides with a plaintiff’s challenge to a federal policy, the court’s injunction only applies to that plaintiff.

In the 1960s, however, some judges invented a new tool called a universal injunction to impose their will on the country. Instead of addressing the concerns of one plaintiff, these judges began enjoining the government from enforcing the policy against anyone, anywhere. 

The universal injunction gives individual judges extraordinary power. Don’t like a law passed by Congress? Gone. Don’t like an agency’s regulation? Dead. Don’t like one of the president’s policies? Sayonara.

At first, these universal injunctions were uncommon. Courts issued only 27 universal injunctions up until the 21st century. But in recent decades, they have become a fact of life. President Joe Biden faced 14 universal injunctions in his four-year term, and President Donald Trump has surpassed that number in less than four months.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that district courts have this immense power. Nor has Congress ever authorized courts to issue universal injunctions. Universal injunctions also were not recognized in England, where America sourced much of its jurisprudence. 

Yet individual judges around the country still claim they have the authority to bring the entire federal government to a screeching halt with the stroke of a pen.

To make matters worse, judges often issue these universal injunctions after preliminary hearings with limited debate by the parties. There’s no jury. There’s no trial. There’s no real testing of the evidence at all. It also means courts have little time to consider gnarly legal issues. That’s why judges are able to shut down federal policies nationwide within days or even hours.

This practice gives virtually unfettered discretion to the country’s most extreme jurists. The government could successfully defend a policy before hundreds of district judges, but a single judge who disagrees could still wipe out the policy nationwide.

Because the injunction can prohibit enforcement of the law or policy anywhere, the federal government understandably feels compelled to immediately appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This rushed process undermines judicial decision-making. 

The Supreme Court prefers when cases take their time and legal issues percolate in the lower courts. That ensures many legal scholars and judges have an opportunity to share their views and fully vet an issue. But universal injunctions often force the Supreme Court to abandon this thorough, deliberative process in favor of a hurried ruling based on half-baked briefs. 

One rogue judge shouldn’t be able to force the Supreme Court to rush on complex legal issues because he or she assumed the power to enjoin a federal policy nationwide.

This isn’t an ideological issue. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan have all expressed concerns about universal injunctions short-circuiting the American judicial system. Nor is this a partisan issue. Solicitor generals for both Presidents Biden and Trump have asked the Supreme Court to put an end to universal injunctions.

These individuals understand better than anyone that the rampant use of universal injunctions by district court judges is threatening to destabilize the judiciary, and indeed, our entire system of government. I hope the court will take advantage of the opportunity to end this unlawful practice once and for all. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
May Production Update – Processing Underway
next post
Gabbard moves presidential daily intelligence brief staff from CIA to ODNI

Related Posts

Hospitals warned they must protect children from chemical...

March 8, 2025

Who was Yahya Sinwar? The Israeli prisoner turned...

October 18, 2024

Newsom rails against Trump’s 25% tariff plan during...

December 6, 2024

Federal judge temporarily restricts DOGE access to personalized...

April 18, 2025

Freedom Caucus draws first battle lines in election...

August 12, 2024

Greenland’s prime minister says US will not ‘get’...

March 31, 2025

Shutdown fears move House Republicans to protect military...

September 20, 2024

House Oversight Committee asks Secret Service chief to...

July 14, 2024

Tim Walz wouldn’t call for TikTok ban on...

September 26, 2024

Hunter Biden’s criminal trial on federal gun charges...

June 3, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent

    • Strategic Chaos or Tactical Goldmine? What QQQ’s Chart is Whispering Right Now

      June 5, 2025
    • Why ADX Can Mislead You — And How to Avoid It

      June 5, 2025
    • S&P 500 on the Verge of 6,000: What’s at Stake?

      June 5, 2025
    • Speaker Johnson surprised by Musk’s criticism of ‘big, beautiful bill’: He’s ‘flat wrong’

      June 5, 2025
    • There’s a way to aid Gaza. I know, my foundation just helped deliver 7 million meals… without incident

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (967)
    • Investing (2,320)
    • Politics (2,873)
    • Stocks (1,054)
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: sportinvestorsleague.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 sportinvestorsleague.com | All Rights Reserved