The judicial overreach from district judges constantly ruling against
the Trump administration and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will
get involved has certainly been in the news lately, as Townhall. It’s
gotten to such a level that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) weighed in with his
Monday episode of “The Verdict,” the podcast co-hosted with Ben
Ferguson.
In discussing the newsworthy topic, Cruz issued several key reminders
about these judges, as Ferguson asked for a “remedy” and a “strategy to
fight back,” reminding that “it’s very frustrating,” especially those
who voted for President Donald Trump’s agenda, which a majority of
Americans support,
As Cruz reminded in response, “to be clear,” the judges “were in
every single case, elected by no one.” For every one of these judges,
they were appointed by the president and then confirmed by the U.S.
Senate, with Cruz stressing that “no federal judge is elected.”
For unelected judges, there is a few examples of checks and balances.
There’s impeachment, with Republican congressmen bringing forth plans
to do just that, though Cruz was not optimistic about such an option.
“Impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against
this abuse of power,” Cruz shared, explaining how it’s the similar
process as impeaching an executive officer. While it only takes a
majority in the House to impeach a judge, which could happen,
“impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge,” Cruz reminded. “It
is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of
indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges
against someone, impeaching is the same thing.”
Even if Republicans in the House were to unify, however, “the chances
that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide
injunctions are 0.00 percent,” Cruz made clear.
In the Senate, Cruz reminded, you need two-thirds to convict and
remove the person in office, in this case a federal judge. “Now, we do
not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53 that means we
would need at least 14 Democrats, and that’s assuming every Republican
stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of
these radical left-wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions
against Trump are zero; and understand why. The Democrats in the Senate
hate Trump,” he said, going on to add how these Democrats, so full of
hatred against Trump, reacted to his address before a joint session of
Congress earlier this month. “These are the same people that sat there
and refused to applaud for the president, refused to applaud for the
mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals.
These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13-year-old
kid fighting to overcome brain cancer.”
Further, Democrats are actually quite supportive of these judges and
what they’re doing. Arguably the most prominent example was Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with his comments last week.
Democrats, Cruz reminded, are “cheering on these injunctions,” as “they
want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective.”
Cruz also spoke further about the power of Congress beyond impeaching
judges, which has no chance of resulting in removal. “Now, secondly,
another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the
federal courts, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts,” the senator added. “Actually,
Congress could abolish the district courts. There’s nothing in the
Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the
Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress
created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals
to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to
limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but again, to exercise
that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster,
which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The
chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of
federal judges issued a nationwide injunction? If it’s not zero, it’s
damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited,” the senator
highlighted, speaking of that example.
However, Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which
provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees
it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”
In his role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on
Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, Cruz will
be chairing hearings focused on such remedies.
“And one remedy to consider, [is] should we return to a system where
you have a three-judge district court to consider challenges to the
constitutionality of federal statutes? I think there’s a lot to be said
for returning to that,” Cruz offered. And, while he expects Democrats to
be opposed, he added that “I think focusing on it, discussing it,
shining a light on it, is important to counteract lawfare.”
That brings us to “the real remedy,” which “is nominating and
confirming good principal judges to the federal courts, to the district
courts, of appeals, to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these
injunctions on appeal.”
That also brings us to the Supreme Court. “The legal process, it’s
going to take the Supreme Court stepping up. I don’t know if they’re
going to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple
opportunities right now, but the most likely mechanism to rein in this
abuse is going to be appellate review, because the Senate Democrats will
oppose just about anything else,” Cruz further explained.
Ferguson chimed in to speak further about “a genuine frustration,” especially towards Democrats, and a hunger for real results.
Americans are right to feel frustrated, Cruz laid out, given that
from 1963-2023, of the 127 injunctions issued nationwide, just over half
were issued against Trump during his first term, 64 to be exact.
There’s already been 37 injunctions against Trump in the first two
months of his second term, Cruz further explained, aptly highlighting
how “the numbers are dramatic.”
The numbers are “pretty encouraging,” though, when it comes to
bringing sunlight to how it’s Democrat-appointed judges going after
Trump. Only five injunctions were by Republican-appointed judges, with
92.2 percent of injunctions against Trump in his first term coming from
judges appointed by a Democrat, leading Cruz to point out that “the
pattern is very simple.” He further explained how “they’re forum
shopping, they’re going and they’re looking for friendly judges. They’re
going and looking for radicals who… hate the president and who will
issue injunctions trying to fight back.”
As “frustrating” as forum shopping might be, Cruz acknowledged,
there’s also remedies. Again, appointing better judges is one option,
“the longer-term remedy,” as Cruz put it. That “shorter-term remedy” is
the appeals process.
The senator brought up a particularly hot button issue of birthright
citizenship, with the president having signed an executive order not
long into his second term to bring an end to the practice. Many judges
have ruled against Trump there, and the administration has asked the
Supreme Court to weigh in.
Cruz brought up the example of Trump v. Casa as one of those cases.
“Now the legality of that order is contested. People disagree on that,
and that is going to let it be litigated. Well, three different district
courts issued preliminary injunctions in response. Now, where were
those courts? One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was in
Massachusetts. So, there’s a reason they’re going to blue states and
they’re finding really left-wing judges,” Cruz explained. “The Supreme
Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,” he
added, reminding how the administration has asked the Court to get
involved, specifically “to partially stay the preliminary injunctions,
and she argued the nationwide injunctions were over broad.” As the
senator explained it, Acting Solicitor General the United States Sarah
Harris “asked for them to be limited to the plaintiffs in each case, or
at most, the residents of the states challenging the order. So, it
should not be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating.”
It’s being actively litigated now. “Now, it’s possible the Supreme
Court will decide it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait for full
merits briefing, and that could take months or even years. But these
cases could provide a mechanism, and I hope they do provide a mechanism
to limit and rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being
abused,” the senator added.
Ferguson also asked for Cruz’s insight as to if injunctions create
precedent. As he asked, “if there is a loss by a judge who does one of
these injunctions, does that then have precedent over other judges
around the country, or can other judges then just say, ‘well, I’m going
to take up the torch and buy more time and be an activist as well?'”
As Cruz explained, “it can definitely be the latter,” but also, “it
depends on where the loss occurs.” If the Court of Appeals, for
instance, reverses the injunctions, all district judges in that circuit
are bound to follow. The Supreme Court would bind judges across the
country. Thus, the senator revealed, “the real answer, hopefully, is to
get this to the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This is
clearly something that is being abused, and it is crying out for the
Supreme Court to rein it in.”
What are the odds, then, that the Supreme Court will actually do that
reining in, so Trump “can do his job,” as Ferguson wondered?
While the issue is already at the Court right now, it comes down to
if five justices are “willing to rein it in.” A majority have to agree
to take up such a case, though we have an example from earlier this
month of how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett
sided with the three liberals in a 5-4 decision. The Court refused to
vacate a ruling from a lower court, thus a ruling from a district judge
forcing the Trump administration to reinstate billions in foreign aid
remained.
“We have seen in some of these early cases, sometimes the answer is
yes, sometimes the answer is no, and, and so it’s going to come down to
Chief Justice Roberts. It’s going to come down to Justice Amy Coney
Barrett and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and we’ll see how they
rule,” Cruz pointed out. “I feel very confident that Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito are more than ready to rein in the abuse of nationwide
injunctions, but I don’t know if there are five justices or not.”
1 2 | Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked. @BenFergusonShow and I take a deep dive in this latest episode of #Verdict. https://t.co/EYq5XPgMSa— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 24, 2025
|
DOGE is finding billions of dollars in wasteful spending, and the
Democrats are losing their minds as they realize their gravy train and
woke projects are coming to an end.
