Confusion about the proper role of the courts extends to many of our sitting judges.
These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system - preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
Justice Thomas says their recent explosion calls for a rethinking of their validity because "No statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions." He concludes that, as used today, they "Boi[l] down to a policy judgment" about how judges define the limits of a president's power.
On the very day the Court ruled, a total of 16 states and the District of Columbia sued to stop President Trump over his border-security measures.
In another ruling that came down the same day the Supreme Court acted on the travel ban, a federal district judge in California overturned an executive order Trump issued June 20: Parents crossing the border with their migrant children must have regular phone calls with their children and be reunited with them within 14 days, the judge ruled.
It is madness that a single federal district court judge can impose such an arbitrary deadline covering the entire country and not have his decision reviewed for weeks or months.
If the confirmation hearings and debate about President Trump's Supreme Court nominee can bring some of those issues forward, we might have the beginnings of a more rational debate on just what legitimate power judges have and how some are currently abusing it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/federal-district-judges-should-not-make-immigration-law-for-whole-country/
These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system - preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
Justice Thomas says their recent explosion calls for a rethinking of their validity because "No statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions." He concludes that, as used today, they "Boi[l] down to a policy judgment" about how judges define the limits of a president's power.
On the very day the Court ruled, a total of 16 states and the District of Columbia sued to stop President Trump over his border-security measures.
In another ruling that came down the same day the Supreme Court acted on the travel ban, a federal district judge in California overturned an executive order Trump issued June 20: Parents crossing the border with their migrant children must have regular phone calls with their children and be reunited with them within 14 days, the judge ruled.
It is madness that a single federal district court judge can impose such an arbitrary deadline covering the entire country and not have his decision reviewed for weeks or months.
If the confirmation hearings and debate about President Trump's Supreme Court nominee can bring some of those issues forward, we might have the beginnings of a more rational debate on just what legitimate power judges have and how some are currently abusing it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/federal-district-judges-should-not-make-immigration-law-for-whole-country/
No comments:
Post a Comment