WASHINGTON – Amid dozens of injunctions issued against the Trump administration, Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee discussed the bill Wednesday to curb the nationwide impact of orders from federal judges.
invoicesponsored by GOP Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads the committee, would prohibit district court judges from issuing injunctions that have a nationwide impact.
“We all have to agree to abandon the universal injunction as a weapon against policies that we disagree with,” Grassley said. “The damage that it causes to the justice system and our democracy is too great.”
As of Friday, 39 judges ruled against the Trump administration “sitting in five different presidents and 11 different district courts on seven circuits,” said one of the witnesses, Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center.
President Donald Trump and Congress’ Republican allies complain that such an injunction would have too much power to hamper the administration’s agenda for single district judges.
Trump also took him to social media, attacking judges who, in particular, quickly enforced Venezuelan citizens by temporarily banning the use of the alien enemy laws of 1798.
South Dakota Senate Majority Leader John Toon said Tuesday that Republicans are considering Grassley’s bill but have not promised to bring it to the floor for the vote.
House Republicans have introduced similar legislation.
Senate Democrats criticised the hearing and argued that the reason there are so many injunctions against the president’s executive order is because they are unconstitutional.
Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Democrat on the committee, pointed to several national injunctions against Trump’s executive orders to end the constitutional right to birthright.
Republicans see abuse
Republicans characterized the gusts of winds from injunctions on administrative actions as judicial activity.
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said the injunction was unprecedented.
Holy called the district court’s ruling “a pattern of abuse.” He added that it was being made not only with a nationwide injunction, but also with a temporary restraining order.
Florida Sen. Ashley Moody also had problems with temporary restraint orders, which are generally unattractive.
“We are very interested in ensuring that our judicial system remains fair and that it only rulings the previous parties in terms of relief and encourages prompt resolution of these extraordinary and important issues,” Moody said.
Criticism poses a threat, Dem says
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon White House of Rhode Island raised concerns about the increased threat of violence targeting judges.
The White House said the response from Republicans on a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration would put those judges and their families at risk.
“An uncomfortable with anger… the decision to the Trump administration may actually have a lot to do with the Trump administration’s unprecedented lawlessness and the destruction of the law, rather than the strange cobalt of judges trying to infiltrate,” the White House said.
Klobuchar said Trump attacked the judge on social media and posted images of himself wearing the crown.
“We don’t live in the kingdom,” she said. “It’s important not to lose sight of the underlying causes of these injunctions. It’s not that these judges are “bent,” “madman,” or “evil.” These are the words used by the president, because the administration violates the constitution.
Judge John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on March 18th A rare statement has been issuedopposes Trump’s proposal that the judge who issued an injunction against the administration order is facing a blast each.
“For over two centuries, it has been established that ammo each is not an appropriate response to differences in opinion over judicial decisions,” Roberts said. “There is a normal appeal review process for that purpose.”
Jennifer Shutt contributed to this story.
Last updated at 4:46pm, April 2, 2025
