Washington – President Trump has intensified attacks on federal judges in recent days against their authority and calls for impeachment.
In particular, the president seems to have attributed the idea of limiting the ability of federal district judges to issue bans with state influence.
“The illegal ban of radical left-wing judges across the country is likely to lead to destruction of our country!” Trump released Thursday night exist His social media platform. “These people are lunatics and don’t even care about the impact they have on their very dangerous and incorrect decisions and rulings.”
Despite Trump’s rampage on social media (even calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the ability of district courts to grant injunctions), a California Republican in Congress is working to control the judge who is examining Trump’s power.
Rep. Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the No Rogue Judgment Act last month, or Nora, to limit the ability of federal judges to issue a national injunction, reducing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.
Issa’s legislation has attracted attention among several prominent Republicans, including the president, despite the president’s determination to raise his anti-immigration agenda despite setbacks in the court.
“You can’t stop the judge from sitting behind the bench, he doesn’t know what happened, it happens to be the left-wing crazy guy,” Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday.
In Washington, Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Issa’s bill reflects a broader push from Republicans to cut the judiciary, which proves to be the only arena Trump encounters unanimous opposition.
After Trump’s leadership, some Republicans targeted judges who they considered “activists” impeachment. Elon Musk, one of the president’s closest advisers and the subject of several court cases, responded to the calls last week, release On X, “It’s a judicial coup.”
Among numerous court cases, Trump has faced dozens of executive orders and actions since taking office in January, perhaps the sharpest condemnation was earlier this month, when U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg of Columbia
Order the government Turn around and carry the plane for immigrants to deport. The plane landed at the destination in El Salvador, and the judges have been fighting with the president’s lawyers for whether they violated the order.
The incident escalates Democrats’ concerns that the Trump administration may refuse to comply with the judge’s orders, launch a “constitutional crisis” and threaten American democracy. For Republicans, Boasberg’s orders have become another gap in judicial attacks against Trump.
“These bans are nothing more than partisan judicial proceedings and undermine the president’s ability to perform legal constitutional duties,” Isa said in an interview with the House Judiciary Committee. “This allows activists to shape national policies throughout the country…this is something that the constitution has never considered.”
Judge Boasberg, who tried to stop the flight of Venezuelan immigrants who eventually landed in the San Salvador prison, was appointed by President George W. Democratic president to many other judges that hinder Trump’s efforts, such as banning trans troops or attempting to undermine efforts by the U.S. international development agencies.
Justin Levitt, a constitutional professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the power of district court judges to make binding rulings on the national level has tired Democrats and Republicans for decades.
In recent years, federal district and courts of appeals have imposed bans on former Biden’s attempts to forgive student debt and part of former Obama’s affordable care laws.
“It’s actually a serious problem, with many occasions on both sides of the aisle,” Levitt said. “It’s hard to know to take this particular version seriously because depending on who tends to rule at any given time, different members of Congress seem to really like or hate this kind of positive court action.”
When Nora was introduced to the Judicial Commission, Issa brought a chart showing the number of bans faced by the mission president. During his first term, Trump won 64, far surpassing former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). According to Issa’s chart, Trump has faced 12 bans in his second term.
“The meaning of this chart is that the court is doing something wrong in some way, not what Donald Trump does,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at the hearing. “There are 64 bans because he is trampling on the legislative and spending powers in the U.S. Congress.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the ISSA bill was a “terrible idea” that it would sow chaos in federal courts. In fact, the measure could constitute a contradictory ruling between regions, leaving Americans bound different rules on complex issues, including birthright citizenship or military rights of trans soldiers, Linsky said.
“If the Northern District of California issues an order telling the cabinet secretary not to do something, the cabinet secretary will say they are not bound by orders outside of the northern district of California,” he said.
Chemerinsky said the bill was to look for the hammer of nails because the state ban issued by the district court was already limited. Such issues are usually appealed soon, and if the federal court of appeals dismisses a lower court judge, the case may be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, he does admit that as the state’s partisan divisions become increasingly acute, the issuance of national bans has become increasingly common, and both ends of the political scope are on the bench and “shopping” for ideological allies.
“The Biden administration’s conservatives keep going to Texas courts to issue bans, and liberals have done that in the Trump administration,” he said.
Judge James Boasberg of the Washington, D.C. District Court showed in 2023 that the plane carrying Venezuelan immigrants turned around while deported, was attacked by President Trump.
(Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Republican lawmakers eager to defend the president have set out to support legislation. It sailed from the House Judiciary Committee on board in early March and is expected to arrive in the House for a vote soon.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), another ardent Trump supporter in Congress Announce He will also introduce legislation in the Senate to limit the national ban on Thursday.
“When you’re working on the bill, you feel it,” said ISSA spokesman Jonathan Wilcox. “When the White House is consistent, the Senate involvement, the leadership’s positive. You won’t understand every day.”
Issa’s legislation marks how Republicans have completely lagged themselves behind the president since they first took office in 2017. At that time, Isa, the conservative who represented the southwest corner of California A party with him breaks Together with Democrats, calling for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Issa has faced some tough challenges in the election since, but in November it won the 48th Congressional District seat with 59% of the vote. He has since positioned himself as one of the president’s most determined allies in California. Earlier this month Isa says He will nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Despite his support and his charts, Isa insisted at the committee hearing that Nora had nothing to do with Trump.
“We have not passed the law that is currently a White House resident,” Isa said. “We are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch, as well as the reasonable challenges of the executive branch, now and for the rest of our Great Republic, we are challenging to action.”
The ISSA bill also includes amendments to Republican and former Kansas Attorney General Rep. Derek Schmidt, which would allow states to file cases and involve reviewing multiple districts by a panel of three judges and being able to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Levitt questioned Issa’s practical ability to tackle Trump’s frustration with district judges’ actions to execute orders. Levitt said the exception cited in the ISSA Act refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that allows federal courts to monitor the conduct of federal agencies.
Levitt said when plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to prevent the executive order from being implemented, they were actually suing the agency, responsible for executing the president’s instructions – agencies that judges could still be prohibited under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In recent cases that have irritated Trump, such as the judge’s order prevented him from expelling allegedly Venezuelan gang members or eliminating birthright citizenship without due process – Levitt said the ISSA bill was invalid because in these cases the defendant would be a cabinet-level agency.
While Levitt doesn’t think Issa’s bill will reach the weakening of judicial power Trump seems to crave, he does warn that Republicans have taken a path they may regret when they become a minority party again and need ban relief.
“Did you object to the super conservative ruling that affects the Biden administration as much as you are here to protest?” Levitt asked.
Chemerinsky said the ISSA bill was more focused when the Trump administration appears to have begun to weaken the power of legislative and judicial branches.
“You have a president trying to define presidential power more broadly than anyone in American history,” he said. “The bill is trying to check that power at this critical moment.”
