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

Trump orders FBI to declassify documents from ‘Crossfire...

March 26, 2025

Tearful chair of Munich Security Conference expresses ‘fear’...

February 18, 2025

How VP Harris is narrowing down her list...

July 26, 2024

Trump accuses ‘scam artist’ Schiff of lying about...

July 16, 2025

Trump taps Richard Grenell as presidential envoy for...

December 15, 2024

Blinken arrives in Israel as Biden-Harris admin faces...

October 22, 2024

Ryan Routh trial continues after agent testifies suspect...

September 12, 2025

Taiwan official warns China, Russia, Iran ‘working together’ 

October 5, 2024

President Trump slams Rosie O’Donnell after she flees...

March 13, 2025

Outgoing WH official calls for US to bolster...

January 8, 2025

    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

    • White House says federal layoffs could hit ‘thousands’ ahead of Trump, Vought meeting

      October 3, 2025
    • Johnson shuts door on negotiating shutdown deal as Democrats dig in on Obamacare

      October 3, 2025
    • Trump must triple severely outdated nuke arsenal to outpace China and Russia, report warns

      October 3, 2025
    • ‘Real consequences’: Food aid, flood insurance, FEMA funds in jeopardy amid shutdown, Johnson says

      October 3, 2025
    • The agency staff Vought might recommend cutting and whether the cuts will be permanent

      October 3, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (1,115)
    • Investing (3,175)
    • Politics (3,869)
    • Stocks (1,155)
    • 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