Democrats retorted at the April 1 hearing that Trump threatened judicial independence and separation of power.
Congressional Republicans are pushing for laws that prevent federal judges from issuing national injunctions.
“Activist District Court judges have taken themselves under the authority of Article 3, Article 3, and have imposed an injunction on the state that is beyond what the US Congress has given federal judges under the statute,” he said.
During the House hearing, Congressional Democrats accused Republicans of exaggerating President Donald Trump’s authority, claiming that Trump has received so many judicial obstacles as his agenda exceeds the limits of his power.
“For some reason… we’re here today to talk about federal court overreach. That’s not an overreaching administrative official,” said Democrat member Hank Johnson (D-Ga.).
Related Stories
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the witnesses at the April 1 hearing, warned the committee about a potential “judicial coup” in a nationwide injunction that said it had “seized control of various administrative officers’ duties.”
In contrast, Professor Kate Shaw of the University of Pennsylvania Law School told the panel that the premise of the hearing (it was “sorryly wrong” that the judges exceeded their authority and this asked for some kind of response.
Venezuelan gang summary
Many of the hearings were focused on one particular legal issue. The official battle with federal judges over Trump’s decision to use alien enemies serves as the basis for deporting members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.
Tensions between Trump and US District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked deportation under alien enemy law, exploded in March when Trump called for each of him and other judges. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts appeared to respond in a statement released after Trump’s remarks on the true society.
“For over two centuries, it has been established that each is not an appropriate response to differences in opinion over judicial decisions,” Roberts said in a statement provided to the Epoch Times. “There is a normal appeal review process for that purpose.”
Ginrich clearly mentioned Roberts’ statement, saying on April 1 that Roberts was “a bit ridiculous” when referring to the appeal process. He suggested that Roberts should establish a rule that national injunctions from the district court will be suspended soon and taken up by the Supreme Court.
“The appeal process can run very long, so by the time you experience the appeal, the damage has already been done,” says Gingrich. “And I think if, in any way, a district judge tries to maintain his ability to issue an injunction, that needs to be fixed.”
The Supreme Court reviews Trump’s appeals in alien enemy law cases and various other cases. Including that, representative General Sarah Harris told the court that increasing the increase in national injunctions in the lower courts is “sufficient.”
“Only the intervention (of the Supreme Court) can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally accepted,” she said.
Judicial institutions
The investigation was found to have been facilitated by “judge shopping,” a practice of strategically filing a lawsuit before a judge whom plaintiffs view in favour of their cases.
One question that can arise from challenging Grassley or Issa’s law is the scope of Section 3, which generally gives federal courts the power to decide the case.
Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee did not respond to Epoch Times’ requests for comment by the time of publication.
Former federal prosecutor Neema Ramani told the Epoch Times that there was “no clear answer” as to whether Congress could limit national injunctions or whether its powers are inherent to Article 3.
“On the other hand, Congress was created by the decree, allowing us to restrict the jurisdiction of lower federal courts,” he said. “But there is argument that the courts have fair powers and that the argument that Congress is limiting injunctions violates the separation of judicial independence and authority.”
Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm told the Epoch Times.
