Although the Republicans hold full control of Congress, President Trump faces a significant obstacle in achieving his policy goals — the judicial system. In his first two months in office, the lower courts blocked more of Trump’s executive orders than they did for other recent presidents throughout their entire administrations.
So far this year, the lower courts have issued at least 15 nationwide injunctions against Trump’s actions.
This marks a sharp increase compared to former President George W. Bush, who faced just six nationwide injunctions during his entire presidency, and former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who each had 12 and 14, respectively, according to data from the Harvard Law Review.
If this trend continues, the total number of nationwide injunctions issued against Trump in his second term could surpass the 64 he faced in his first term.
During his initial term, Trump signed 220 executive orders, a figure consistent with other presidents, as noted by the American Presidency Project.
Since the beginning of his second term, he has already signed more than 90, according to the Federal Register.
Historically, lower court decisions were more focused on specific cases. However, in recent years, courts have become increasingly willing to issue nationwide injunctions that apply broadly across the country.
These injunctions have significantly hindered Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship and implement several other policies.
Trump’s administration has attempted to challenge these injunctions on birthright citizenship by seeking the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court to curb the growing trend of nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts.
The Supreme Court has allowed critics of Trump’s request until April 4 to respond, indicating that the justices may not be in a rush to resolve the matter.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have been particularly vocal in criticizing the lower courts for their excessive use of nationwide injunctions, arguing that they are overstepping their authority.
Earlier this month, Alito wrote a strong dissent, supported by Justices Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, criticizing the decision not to overturn a lower court ruling that required the Trump administration to release $2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development funds.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito questioned in his dissent. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No.’”
It remains unclear whether Alito and Gorsuch can persuade the rest of the Court to block such nationwide injunctions.
For now, Trump’s administration can only appeal these decisions to higher courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court. However, this process is time-consuming and expensive.
Some of Trump’s supporters have speculated about the possibility of simply disregarding court orders.
Vice President JD Vance has openly accused certain judges of making unlawful rulings, while Trump has suggested the idea of impeaching judges who block his initiatives.
This proposal led to an unusual public response from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement last week, without directly referencing Trump. “The normal appellate review process exists for that reason.”
Trump dismissed Roberts’ remarks and hinted that he does not intend to defy court orders.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg is investigating whether Trump violated his 14-day injunction that prohibited flights to El Salvador intended to transport alleged Venezuelan gang members to prisons there.
Despite Boasberg’s order, several flights took place.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and others have warned that defying such court orders could lead to a constitutional crisis.
Trump has also taken steps to retaliate against certain attorneys and law firms that have blocked his policies. He has used executive authority to revoke their security clearances and terminate government contracts.
Just last week, Trump directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to explore ways to sanction law firms and attorneys who file “frivolous” lawsuits against the U.S. government.
{Matzav.com}The post Lower Courts Blocking Trump’s Executive Orders At Much Higher Rate Than Predecessors first appeared on Matzav.com.