Three Key Takeaways:
- Chuck Grassley introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act to stop district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block Presidential actions, a strategy often used by the Left against Donald Trump’s policies.
- The bill would limit district courts to only resolving cases between the parties involved and prevent hasty temporary restraining orders against the government from impacting national policy.
- Grassley’s legislation has garnered bipartisan support, including from some Democrats, who are concerned about judicial overreach, ensuring that major policy decisions remain with elected officials rather than unelected judges.
Chuck Grassley is ready to fight back against activist judges.
Democrats won’t be happy about it.
And Chuck Grassley dropped a bombshell that will leave leftists shaking with rage.
Grassley introduces bill to rein in rogue judges
Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is taking aim at one of the Left’s favorite judicial tricks.
The Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman announced plans to introduce the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, aimed at stopping district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that can derail Presidential actions with the stroke of a pen.
“Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving ‘cases’ and ‘controversies,’ not making policy,” Grassley wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Grassley pointed out that these nationwide injunctions have become the Left’s go-to strategy for sabotaging Donald Trump’s agenda, with judges using them to block the President’s policies across the entire country – not just for the plaintiffs in the specific case.
“More than two-thirds of all universal injunctions issued over the past 25 years were levied against the first Trump administration,” Grassley revealed. “In the past two months alone, judges have issued at least 15 universal injunctions against the administration—surpassing the 14 President Biden faced throughout his four-year term.”
Leftist judges are costing American taxpayers billions
What makes these nationwide injunctions even worse is their enormous cost to American taxpayers.
Grassley cited one shocking example where a Biden-appointed judge in Washington, D.C. issued an order against Trump’s pause of U.S. Agency for International Development funding.
“Had the Supreme Court not directed the judge to clarify this order, it would have forced $2 billion in taxpayer money out the door—most of it to entities that didn’t even sue,” Grassley explained.
The Iowa Senator’s legislation would restore Constitutional order by limiting district courts to resolving only the cases between the parties directly involved in the lawsuit.
Under Grassley’s bill, lower courts could no longer block legitimate executive action by issuing sweeping orders that affect parties not involved in the case.
The legislation would also make temporary restraining orders against the government immediately appealable, ensuring that cooler heads prevail over hasty decisions made in politically charged moments.
Even Democrats have complained about judicial overreach
What makes Grassley’s move even more powerful is that prominent Democrats have also expressed concerns about activist judges overstepping their authority.
“Two-hundred forty Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, in 2023 submitted a friend-of-the-court brief warning of the ‘perilous consequences’ resulting from a district judge’s move to block the abortion pill mifepristone,” Grassley noted.
Even liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has expressed dismay over the practice.
The simple truth is that district judges were never meant to have the power to set national policy. Their Constitutional role is to resolve specific disputes between specific parties – not act as unelected super-legislators.
Nationwide injunctions are a relatively recent phenomenon. As Grassley pointed out, “Scholars can find no clear record of a universal injunction issued before 1963. The practice has become common only in the past few decades.”
The explosion of these injunctions has turned the judicial selection process into a partisan battleground, with litigants “forum shopping” to find judges likely to be sympathetic to their cause.
Congress must act to restore Constitutional balance
Grassley’s bill represents a crucial step toward restoring the proper Constitutional balance between the branches of government.
“If the Supreme Court won’t act to rein in the lower courts, Congress must,” Grassley declared.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to create and organize federal courts under Article III, Section 1. Grassley’s legislation is a proper exercise of that Constitutional power.
“Republicans and Democrats alike, including me, have cheered or criticized the policy implications of universal injunctions,” Grassley admitted. “But that approach inappropriately politicizes the federal court system and disrupts the balance of powers. Congress ought to put a stop to it for good.”
The Senate Judiciary Chairman is calling for bipartisan support for his bill, emphasizing that this isn’t about whether you support or oppose specific policies – it’s about respecting the Constitutional limits on judicial power.
If passed, the Judicial Relief Clarification Act would ensure that major policy decisions are made by elected representatives who are accountable to the American people, not by unelected judges with lifetime appointments.
With the President’s agenda constantly under attack from activist judges, this legislation couldn’t come at a more critical time.
