Senators Push to Eliminate Nationwide Injunctions as Supreme Court Case Begins
As the Supreme Court hears its first major case on the issue of nationwide injunctions in nearly six years, several Senate leaders are raising concerns about the growing influence of federal judges in shaping policy. Senator John Kennedy, a prominent advocate for the Judicial Relief Clarification Act (JCRA), has been vocal about the practice, arguing that it allows judges to effectively override laws and presidential directives without proper legislative support. Kennedy’s comments came during a segment on Fox News Digital, where he emphasized that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not to create new ones. “When Congress makes a law, the federal judges are supposed to follow it,” he said, “and when the president exercises his power under Article II, judges are supposed to follow it, so long as it’s lawful.”
Kennedy explained that universal injunctions, which have been used since the 1960s, have historically been rare but have become more common in recent administrations. He noted that only 27 such injunctions were issued from the beginning of the 1990s through the end of the 2000s, none of which were issued against Presidents George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton. However, the practice has increased significantly under President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and even more so under Donald Trump, who has faced nearly 100 nationwide injunctions during his term. Kennedy argued that the use of these injunctions has allowed judges to effectively “rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday” to advance their own ideological agendas, rather than upholding the legal framework established by voters and legislators.
Tommy Tuberville, another Senate Republican, joined Kennedy in criticizing the perceived judicial overreach, particularly by ‘woke’ judges who are seen as allowing personal beliefs to override the will of the electorate. Tuberville noted that President Trump has demonstrated significant success in his policy agenda, including securing the most secure border in American history, yet some judges continue to block his efforts. He warned that such judges should consider retiring their robes if they intend to make political decisions rather than uphold the law. “If a judge wants to make political decisions, they should run for office,” Tuberville said, emphasizing that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not to shape legislative outcomes.
John Cornyn, a fellow Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also voiced support for the JCRA, describing nationwide injunctions as a real problem that could halt a president’s agenda at any time. Cornyn explained that a single federal judge can effectively stop a popularly elected president by issuing a temporary restraining order that applies to the entire nation. He warned that without judicial restraint, the balance of power between the branches of government could be severely disrupted. “If the Supreme Court doesn’t do it in the context of this birthright citizenship case, then Congress needs to continue to pursue this via Senator Grassley’s bill and other means,” Cornyn said, suggesting that legislative action may be necessary if the current court does not address the issue adequately.
The case currently before the Supreme Court involves a specific injunction related to the interpretation of birthright citizenship law. While the court will determine the scope of this particular order, the broader implications for judicial power and executive authority are expected to be a key point of discussion. If the court rules against the use of universal injunctions, it could mark a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, potentially limiting the ability of courts to block major policy changes without clear legal justification.
As the case unfolds, political figures on both sides of the aisle are likely to continue monitoring its outcome, with many fearing that the trend of judicial overreach could have far-reaching consequences for the separation of powers and the ability of elected officials to implement their agenda. The debate over the scope of judicial authority remains a central issue in American politics, with concerns about the potential for unchecked judicial power continuing to shape discussions on the role of the federal court system.