Trump will challenge the ability of district judges to issue national injunctions

[Swordsmyth]

Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump.
The administration's move — aimed at pushing back at unfavorable decisions from lower courts across the country — would set the stage for a vast legal debate and battle over the role that national injunctions play in the courts.
Pence argued to supporters at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society that the Trump administration has been “unfairly” targeted by injunctions issued by lower courts, saying the rulings have prevented officials from implementing policies and regulations.
The vice president said that in the coming days, administration officials will seek pathways to put the issue before the Supreme Court.


“So I say to all those gathered here: For the sake of our liberty, our security, our prosperity and the separation of powers, this era of judicial activism must come to an end,” Pence said. “The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them.”
“It’s remarkable to think a Supreme Court justice has to convince four of their colleagues to uphold an injunction, but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly elected president of the United States from fulfilling what he believes is a constitutional duty,” Pence said.
“This obstruction at the district level is unprecedented,” he added.

More at: https://thehill.com/regulation/court...udges-to-issue

[Swordsmyth]

Bump

[Swordsmyth]

Attorney General William Barr is taking on another item from President Donald Trump's agenda, railing against judges who issue rulings blocking nationwide policies.In a speech Tuesday night, Barr took aim at the broad judicial power, arguing that federal judges who have issued the so-called nationwide injunctions are hampering Trump's efforts on immigration, health care and other issues with "no clear end in sight."


At a re-election rally earlier this month, Trump railed against "activist judges who issue nationwide injunctions based on their personal beliefs," which he said "undermine democracy and threaten the rule of law."
Administration officials have often complained about the proliferation of nationwide injunctions since Trump became president. Vice President Mike Pence said a few weeks ago that the administration intends to challenge the right of federal district courts to issue such rulings.
"The legal community and the broader public should be more concerned, particularly about this trend of nationwide injunctions," Barr said.
Barr highlighted the legal fights that have happened in federal courts across the country over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children but don't have legal status to protect them from deportation.
The Justice Department, under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. Texas and other Republican-led states eventually sued and won a partial victory in a federal court in Texas.
Civil rights groups, advocates for immigrants and Democratic-led states all have sued to prevent the end of the program. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the administration decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious.
Barr said Trump "lost much of his leverage" in negotiations with congressional Democrats, who were pushing for a permanent solution for DACA recipients, after one district court judge issued an order forcing the administration to maintain the program nationwide.
"Unsurprisingly, those negotiations did not lead to a deal," Barr said.
In his speech to the American Law Institute, Barr argued it isn't about partisanship and said the approach taken by judges who issue these nationwide rulings departs not only from the limitations of the Constitution, but also from the "traditional understanding of the role of courts." The Justice Department will continue to oppose such rulings, he said.
"Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically," Barr said.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/ag-barr-says-...-politics.html

[fcreature]

Fantastic.

The courts have gone insane with their overreaches. The idea that national injunctions from district courts were ever even followed in the first place is... crazy.

[Zippyjuan]

So only the Supreme Court can hear cases related to the Federal Government? The Supreme Court is an appellate court- it hears appeals from other courts. District courts are "trial courts". They are seeking to change the entire court system so it is less of a check on government excess.

intends to challenge the right of federal district courts to issue such rulings.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...-and-structure

Courts decide what really happened and what should be done about it. They decide whether a person committed a crime and what the punishment should be. They also provide a peaceful way to decide private disputes that people can’t resolve themselves. Depending on the dispute or crime, some cases end up in the federal courts and some end up in state courts. Learn more about the different types of federal courts.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court. Learn more about the Supreme Court.

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are 3-judge panels authorized to hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. These panels are a unit of the federal courts of appeals, and must be established by that circuit.

Five circuits have established panels: First Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.

District Courts

The nation’s 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.

Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.

There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court. Four territories of the United States have U.S. district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government.

More at link.

[enhanced_deficit]

Bump.

This coud be huge if confirmed as non-fakenews claim.
Please continue to share uplifting stories to keep the morale high.




Developing...

Trump will challenge anyone anywhere standing in the way of 'drain the swamp'

Trump will challenge all neocons' ability to continue globalist interventions

[Zippyjuan]

What the Constitution says: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The additional powers Trump wants would be unconstitutional.

[susano]

Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump.
The administration's move — aimed at pushing back at unfavorable decisions from lower courts across the country — would set the stage for a vast legal debate and battle over the role that national injunctions play in the courts.
Pence argued to supporters at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society that the Trump administration has been “unfairly” targeted by injunctions issued by lower courts, saying the rulings have prevented officials from implementing policies and regulations.
The vice president said that in the coming days, administration officials will seek pathways to put the issue before the Supreme Court.


“So I say to all those gathered here: For the sake of our liberty, our security, our prosperity and the separation of powers, this era of judicial activism must come to an end,” Pence said. “The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them.”
“It’s remarkable to think a Supreme Court justice has to convince four of their colleagues to uphold an injunction, but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly elected president of the United States from fulfilling what he believes is a constitutional duty,” Pence said.
“This obstruction at the district level is unprecedented,” he added.

More at: https://thehill.com/regulation/court...udges-to-issue

Yeeeees! It's about time!!!

[susano]

What the Constitution says: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii



The additional powers Trump wants would be unconstitutional.

What additional powers? he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Illegal immigration is illegal.

And here is what congress is supposed to be doing with respect to that:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

Instead, they are aiding and abetting a wave of invasions.

And then Article IV, Sec 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

[Swordsmyth]

So only the Supreme Court can hear cases related to the Federal Government? The Supreme Court is an appellate court- it hears appeals from other courts. District courts are "trial courts". They are seeking to change the entire court system so it is less of a check on government excess.




https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...-and-structure



More at link.

They can rule on cases related to the Federal Government, their rulings should just apply only to their jurisdiction.

[Swordsmyth]

What the Constitution says: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii



The additional powers Trump wants would be unconstitutional.

That has nothing to do with whether or not their rulings can extend beyond their jurisdiction.

[Zippyjuan]

That has nothing to do with whether or not their rulings can extend beyond their jurisdiction.

What is their jurisdiction?

https://system.uslegal.com/federal-district-courts/

Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal law and those involving citizens of different states.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/j...federal-courts

Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

The jurisdiction of the federal courts has been defined by the Constitution, congressional statutes, and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Article III provides that the judicial power "shall extend" to nine types of "cases" and "controversies": all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; controversies to which the United States is a party; controversies between two or more states; controversies between a state and citizens of another state; controversies between citizens of different states; controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and controversies between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and public ministers and cases in which a state is a party, leaving the remainder of cases within the judicial power to the Court's appellate jurisdiction, with "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Article III of the Constitution left for the Congress to determine the distribution of federal jurisdiction within a system of federal courts and between the federal and state courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for cases to enter a federal court through an original filing, through removal of a case originally filed in state court, and through an appeal from the highest court of a state to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the past two centuries, Congress has passed numerous statutes redefining the jurisdiction of the federal courts within the limits set by the Constitution. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court in its decisions has established additional rules and doctrines governing federal court jurisdiction.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/u-...al-courts-101/

District Courts

The United States District Courts are the federal judiciary’s trial courts. Each court has at least one District Judge, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. District court judges enjoy life tenure, as mandated by Article III. Currently, there are over 670 district judgeships authorized by Congress.

District courts hear both criminal and civil cases, though their jurisdiction is limited to disputes that involve an actual “case or controversy.” Additionally, the dispute must involve a constitutional provision or federal law (as opposed to a state law) or be between litigants residing in different states (or where one party is a citizen of another country).

[Swordsmyth]

What is their jurisdiction?

https://system.uslegal.com/federal-district-courts/

Their district, just like the circuit courts' jurisdiction is their circuit.

[Zippyjuan]

Their district, just like the circuit courts' jurisdiction is their circuit.

Link? They can rule on Federal laws and federal laws are not restricted to one district. Federal law in Kansas is the same as in Alaska.

[Swordsmyth]

Link?

LOL

They are DISTRICT courts, that means their district is their jurisdiction by definition.

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

They are DISTRICT courts, that means their district is their jurisdiction by definition.

I see. Yet again you are unable to support a claim. This seems to happen a lot.

[Swordsmyth]

I see. Yet again you are unable to support a claim. This seems to happen a lot.

LOL

[susano]

Good article on the danger of the judicial usurping the other two branches and the constitution:

https://www.heritage.org/courts/repo...its-the-courts

Anyone who thinks one judge should be dictating policy for the entire country is insane. Article III confers no such authority.