Checks and Balances - Convention of States is committed to making sure that our institutions are operating according to the rule of law within their designated powers.

As President Trump continues to issue a record number of Executive Orders, he appears to be getting a great deal of pushback from the courts through their use of universal injunctions. The question is: do district courts have the authority to make cases subject to universal/nationwide injunctions? First, it’s important to understand what a universal injunction is: The standard practice in U.S. courts is that a judge issues an order that gives only the people who sued what they want. As the name suggests, nationwide injunctions go well beyond the parties to a case and apply everywhere and to everyone who might be affected. A Supreme Court lawyer also explains the universal (or nationwide) injunctions in this way: The Trump administration’s acting top Supreme Court lawyer, Sarah Harris, described one major flaw in these court orders with universal effect. Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere, Harris wrote in the emergency appeal over birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has reversed the decisions of judges in three cases, but have not made a ruling about the use of the universal injunction itself. Both sides of the aisle debate about the legality of these injunctions: The validity and origins of nationwide injunctions are hotly debated by legal experts. Instead of granting an injunction that offers relief to a specific plaintiff who sued - the more common scenario - these nationwide orders halt the government from executing a policy against everyone, extending beyond the parties in a specific case. Judges often justify their use to address what they perceive as broader harm and to maintain uniformity of the law nationally. To complicate matters even further, attorneys “shop” for the judges that will support their positions: a liberal attorney under a Democrat president will look for a judge with a liberal reputation for the plaintiff; a conservative attorney under a Republican president will look for a conservative judge. Still, the protests against the injunctions have been made to the Supreme Court: During the Biden administration, the U.S. Solicitor General asked the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether this remedy is permissible, but the Court thus far has sidestepped the question (though several Justices have written separately over the past few years to question the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions). But the issue may be coming to a head now, in the first few months of the second Trump administration. Several federal district courts have already entered nationwide injunctions against some of the administration’s executive actions that have been challenged in court. The President and his deputies have been railing against the practice in the media. Meanwhile Congress has attempted to stop these injunctions, too. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is attempting to stop these actions   by district judges. He emphasizes the seriousness of the issue: Right now, there are more than 600 active district judges. [There are] more than 1,000, if you count senior judges. Any one of them can effectively veto national policy. In one sense, district judges wield more power than any Supreme Court Justice – who must vote with their colleagues before stopping or compelling national government action. This creates a strong incentive for forum shopping. According to a 2024 Harvard Law Review Study, nearly all universal injunctions against the first Trump administration and the Biden administration were issued by judges appointed by the opposite political party. This places tremendous strain on the judicial system. Other bills are being put forward in the Senate and in the House to set limits on our judiciary. In order to keep the wheels of government turning, either SCOTUS or Congress will need to take action:  Monica Haymond, an expert in legal procedure at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, said nationwide injunctions can efficiently stop executive actions that are deemed likely unlawful, but they also can be misused and delay rules passed by democratically accountable institutions. 'Taking that power away from the courts will mean they have fewer ways to prevent harm. But nationwide injunctions can also cause harm' Haymond said. 'I think the answer to the question whether courts should have the power to issue nationwide injunctions comes down to whether you trust the judicial process writ large.' It’s time to correct the checks and balances of our government and ensure that justice at all levels is being done. **Convention of States** is committed to making sure that our institutions are operating according to the rule of law within their designated powers. We want people to be educated to respect these limits and if need be, speak up for them.   #	PETITION_WIDGET{petition_tag:petition widget;coalition_id:;anedot_url:}	#