WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans, including some from Alabama, are pursuing legislation to reform the judicial branch to restrain judges who are impeding President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Federal judges have recently ruled against Trump during his first months in office as he tries to make sweeping changes to the federal government including firing federal workers and cutting funds. Trump and Republicans have been especially fixated on targeting Judge James Boasberg for his deportation flights ruling.
U.S. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Enterprise, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s excited about efforts to restrict judges’ power.
“They elected (Trump) to secure the country and get the debt under control,” Moore told Alabama Daily News. “Judges keep trying to impede what he’s doing. No one judge should have that kind of power over the American people.”
The No Rogue Rulings Act would effectively ban nationwide injunctions that judges can use to prevent the federal government from implementing particular policies to all people, not just those before the court. The House was set to vote on the legislation this week before Speaker Mike Johnson scrapped votes after losing a battle over allowing new parents to vote by proxy.
Some GOP lawmakers, including Moore, are taking efforts to restrict judges a step further by supporting a bill that calls for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg. The impeachment legislation is not expected to advance in the House.
“We’ve got to make sure we move methodically, make sure we cover the correct approach in how we reel these district judges in,” Moore told ADN.
In the Senate, Alabama Sens. Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville are throwing their support behind Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s bill. The Judicial Relief Clarification Act, would also limit injunctions to those directly before the court. Under the bill, parties seeking a nationwide injunction would have to file a class action lawsuit. It would also make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable.
“We need our justice system to focus on upholding the Constitution and not pushing a woke agenda,” Tuberville told ADN.
The Senate Judiciary Committee discussed solutions to the “problem of universal injunctions” during a hearing Wednesday. Britt, who sits on the committee, said she supports Grassley’s bill.
“One of the provisions of the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, which I am proud to be a co-sponsor of, amends sections 705 and 706 of the (Administrative Procedure Act) to limit relief to the persons before the court,” Britt said.
Britt asked witnesses at the hearing to address a criticism of efforts to curtail nationwide injunctions such as that getting rid of them could lead to an inconsistent application of the law.
“I think one of the striking things that you see for universal injunctions is they are proceeding on a premise that the first judge selected with highly intense forum shopping, and in a time of high judicial polarization, that the first judge who takes the question is going to be right, but often universal injunctions get reversed or narrowed on appeal,” Samuel Bray, professor at Notre Dame Law School, said.
The Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, said Republicans are only bringing up the topic of nationwide injunctions now because of judges blocking Trump’s slew of executive orders.
“But as I’ve said many times before, we cannot have one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for Democrats,” Durbin said. “Any legislation on this topic must be based on the merits—not political expediency.”