A Bill to Stop Nationwide Injunctions – WSJ

Scholars can find no clear record of a universal injunction issued before 1963. The practice has become common only in the past few decades. It can have serious consequences for the American taxpayer. A Biden-appointed judge in the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order against Mr. Trump s pause of some U.S. Agency for International Development funding. TROs are supposed to maintain the status quo while review is pending. Had the Supreme Court not directed the judge to clarify this order, it would have forced $2 billion in taxpayer money out the door most of it to entities that didn t even sue.

These decisions also place undue stress on the judicial system by inserting political calculation into the selection of the judges and the resolution of disputes. Political and fiscal implications aside, district judges abuse of temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions is unconstitutional. Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving cases and controversies, not making policy.

The obvious solution is to limit district courts to resolving the cases only between the parties before them. If the Supreme Court won t act to rein in the lower courts, Congress must. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to create and organize federal courts. On Monday I will introduce the Judicial Relief Clarification Act to restore the constitutional role of lower courts by restraining their ability to issue universal injunctions. Under my bill, lower courts could no longer block legitimate executive action by issuing orders to nonparties to the lawsuit. The bill would also make TROs against the government immediately appealable, to make sure that prudence wins out over rash decisions handed down in the heat of a political moment.

via www.wsj.com

Senator Chuck Grassley.