Summary
The Republican-led House passed a bill 219–213 to curb federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, a response to judges rulings against Trump-era policies.
The bill restricts relief to affected parties only, not nationwide. Republicans argue liberal judges are blocking Trump’s agenda, while Democrats say courts are striking down illegal orders. GOP lawmakers also seek to limit funding for enforcing broad injunctions.
The bill faces slim chances in the Senate.
The Congressional Research Service reported 17 nationwide injunctions so far in Trump’s second term, compared to 86 in his first.
Judge: Not constitutional, NEXT
Clarence Thomas: “I’ll allow it”
“Now I gotta be getting on vacation. Harlan’s RV is outside, gassed up, and ready to roll!”
Carved into the Supreme Court building:
That’s a precedent, it was not in the constitution. People at the time just went along with it.
Laws are only enforced by the people. They could totally use a law to overturn Marbury v Madison and the most of the law enforcement / military would just think “seems legit” and go along with it. Separation of powers would be, for all intents and purposes, over (unless the boots on ground actually stop it)
It’s not just a precedent. It’s the precedent that all legal scholars learn on their first day of US law school. It’s a foundation stone of the US legal system. You tear that one down, and you’ve torn the system down.