These kinds of cases were originally intended to be in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The USSC itself allowed inferior courts to have national jurisdiction, in a number of cases over time.
I believe Constitutionally, Congress can again limit inferior court jurisdiction.
Both the Supreme Court and Congress — or both — should act to rein in district court judges who issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions.
Such injunctions purport to apply those judges’ decisions to the whole country, rather than just to the litigants before them or to the specific geographical jurisdictions the judges serve. The use of such injunctions has exploded in recent years, and it has proven particularly popular among liberal district judges who aim to block initiatives of the Trump administration.
A few weeks back, I made the case that Congress should move to limit the abusive use of such injunctions. Several questioners and panelists at a Feb. 4 Heritage forum said the same thing, noting that Congress does have the authority to define and limit federal court jurisdictions in multiple ways, not just geographically.
But what I had missed was that a Supreme Court precedent from 1984 already should be keeping many of these judges in check. Heritage senior fellow Hans von Spakovsky spent some time discussing that precedent in his opening remarks.
As Justice Samuel Alito explained in another case, if a single lower court judge can in effect bind the entire country, it encourages litigants to race to the courts to find a friendly judge. This, he wrote, “invites the losers to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”
One way or another, judges should show restraint. But if they won’t, Congress or the Supreme Court should restrain them.
Read more at washingtonexaminer.com...
I believe Constitutionally, Congress can again limit inferior court jurisdiction.
Both the Supreme Court and Congress — or both — should act to rein in district court judges who issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions.
Such injunctions purport to apply those judges’ decisions to the whole country, rather than just to the litigants before them or to the specific geographical jurisdictions the judges serve. The use of such injunctions has exploded in recent years, and it has proven particularly popular among liberal district judges who aim to block initiatives of the Trump administration.
A few weeks back, I made the case that Congress should move to limit the abusive use of such injunctions. Several questioners and panelists at a Feb. 4 Heritage forum said the same thing, noting that Congress does have the authority to define and limit federal court jurisdictions in multiple ways, not just geographically.
But what I had missed was that a Supreme Court precedent from 1984 already should be keeping many of these judges in check. Heritage senior fellow Hans von Spakovsky spent some time discussing that precedent in his opening remarks.
As Justice Samuel Alito explained in another case, if a single lower court judge can in effect bind the entire country, it encourages litigants to race to the courts to find a friendly judge. This, he wrote, “invites the losers to seek to obtain in court what they could not achieve in the political arena.”
One way or another, judges should show restraint. But if they won’t, Congress or the Supreme Court should restrain them.
Read more at washingtonexaminer.com...
