Federal judges have constitutional authority as a branch of the federal government, but many of them are being accused of stepping outside their defined roles to be the new "Resistance" movement for the Far Left and block the agenda of the executive branch.
Americans voted for change, and did so in historic numbers, but what President Donald Trump calls “activist judges” have blocked much of that change through court orders and injunctions.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) hopes his proposed legislation will be the tip of the spear in reversing the trend.
Grassley, who at 91 is the oldest sitting senator and longest-serving Republican in congressional history, introduced a bill Monday that at its core would make District Court judges the ruling voice for a district, not a nation. He believes there will be enough GOP support to pass it.
Currently, 677 judges serve in 93 districts across the country.
“When you have a national injunction in a California district, that means that judge is making his decision nationwide to stop the President from doing what he thinks he should do as a result of his election,” Grassley said on Washington Watch Tuesday.
In doing so, the judge becomes less a settler of “cases” as described in Article III, Section 2, says Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.
The U.S. Constitution gives judges the ability to settle disputes, not dictate policy, which is what Grassley says is happening now in numerous federal courtrooms.
The senator did not specifically mention Washington, D.C., District Court Judge James Boasberg, whose battle with Trump over the fate of alleged Venezuelan criminal gang members has stirred the news cycle for weeks.
Instead, he continued with a fictional California theme of one judge versus 50 U.S. states.
“In the final analysis, this judge is a policy-maker instead of being a judge interpreting law. My legislation would stop district judges from dictating national policy,” Grassley told show host Tony Perkins.
Evidence of overreach
There have been 100-plus lawsuits filed to stop President Trump so far.
In more than two months, district courts that are traditionally focused on matters within their defined areas have issued a whopping 15 injunctions against the Trump administration. That is more than were faced by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who had 12 and 14 during their entire presidencies, according to data from the Harvard Law Review via Matzav.com.
The restraining order issued by Boasberg was in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward over the deportation of what the Trump administration says are dangerous members of international gangs Tren de Aragua and MS-13.
The gang members were flown to El Salvador for detainment. El Salvadoran officials have confirmed their gang membership, NewsNation has reported.
Grassley’s bill “limits judges to deciding cases and controversies before them and the interpretation applied to that single district, not any nationwide application,” he said.
Grassley’s bill, by limiting the scope of judges, would amend two federal laws, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
In addition to making rulings more regional, it would also give parties the ability to quickly appeal an injunction or temporary restraining order.
Typically, a TRO cannot be appealed, but there are exceptions.
Similar legislation has been filed in the House by Representative Darrell Issa (R-California).
In the case of Boasberg and the deported likely gang members, injunctive relief affects Americans from coast-to-coast, millions who swung the 2024 popular vote Trump’s way with immigration being a key policy, not just the roughly 250 deportees.
Democrats believed they were adversely affected by partisan judges during the Biden administration, Grassley said. However, he doubts his bill will receive bipartisan support now that the roles have been reversed.
“We had an effort made in the Biden administration, by at least 243 Democrat members of Congress, saying the same thing I’m saying that this was being abused by then, I suppose, Republican judges during the Biden administration," the Senator recalled. "We should get bipartisan support, but I bet we won’t, because the Democrats are using this tool very effectively.”
Will the Supremes step up?
Grassley believes his bill will advance from committee and receive a vote on the Senate floor probably sometime after the Easter break.
Republican support should be there, he says. Currently 21 Republicans are co-sponsors. “I think in the end we’ll get them all on board,” he said.
So, judicial overreach could in fact be checked by Congress, but it would pack a better punch if it was handled in its own government branch, Grassley said.
“It would be handled much more effectively and probably with more prestige behind it if the Supreme Court would do this on their own, but we can’t wait to see whether the Supreme Court will do something,” Grassley said. “It’s certainly within the purview of Congress to take these actions.”
