全国性禁令:行政权与司法权的冲突
Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nationwide-injunctions-pit-executive-versus-judicial-authority

《大纪元》的这篇文章讨论了联邦法官越来越多地使用全国性禁令,这些禁令会阻止国家政策的实施,并在特朗普政府时期成为一个争议点。这些禁令通常由对方党派任命的法官发出,因涉嫌超越司法权限以及受到“法官购物”的影响而受到批评,所谓的“法官购物”是指原告战略性地在有利的司法管辖区提起诉讼。 在特朗普总统任期内,此类禁令的数量大幅增加。法官们为其广泛的适用范围辩护,理由是需要防止行政行为造成广泛的损害,例如针对特朗普关于变性人医疗和出生公民权政策的裁决。批评人士认为,单一法官不应能够为全国制定政策。最高法院尚未直接处理这个问题,但特朗普政府已请求干预,认为普遍禁令的盛行会削弱政府实施政策的能力。专家认为,最高法院可能会审查特朗普限制出生公民权的命令,这可能导致对全国性禁令合法性的更广泛裁决。


原文

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock, Getty Images

Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations.

Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”

Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action.

Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences.

While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process.

Rise in Nationwide Injunctions

According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years.

Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House.

The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms.

That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party.

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles on Feb. 6, 2025. Following President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting gender-related procedures for minors, the hospital announced on Feb. 4 that it would pause the initiation of hormone therapy for patients under 19 while it reviews the order “to fully understand its implications.” Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

Judges have defended the nationwide scope of their rulings.

“The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care.

The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender-affirming medical care.

In issuing a preliminary injunction on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” as plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states.

Supreme Court Review

Experts have pointed to Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship as one that’s likely to reach the Supreme Court. Given a recent filing by the Trump administration, it could prompt a broader ruling about nationwide injunctions.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to say “enough is enough.” She filed a petition asking the court to review three nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. She noted that the number of universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued against the current administration has already outpaced the first three years of the Biden administration.

She argued that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Under Biden, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a filing that “the government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can block a federal statute or regulation nationwide with just a single lower-court victory.”

Read the rest here...

Loading...

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com