Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 4292

Should Federal District Courts be Prohibited from Issuing Nationwide Injunctions?

Argument in favor

The abuse of national injunctions allows courts to bypass normal legislative channels to pursue individual judges’ agendas, politicizing the courts and taking policymaking power away from the legislative and executive branches. Ending district courts’ use of nationwide injunctions will prevent unelected judges from wrongfully blocking policies crafted and enacted by publicly elected legislators.

Mark's Opinion
···
09/30/2019
District Courts are just that. District. They should NOT be allowed to issue nationwide injunctions. Their authority is limited to their respective districts, as it should be.
Like (54)
Follow
Share
···
09/29/2019
Of course! They only have jurisdiction over the states in their district, by definition. That’s why the system is set up as it is. They don’t have nationwide jurisdiction. Even appellate courts don’t have nationwide jurisdiction, only over their circuit. It’s a violation of separation of powers for a rogue judge to usurp presidential authority even for their own district, let alone the nation. Their rulings are nullities outside their jurisdiction and probably within it as well. Need a sound appellate court to reign in tyrannical district court judges.
Like (23)
Follow
Share
Sandy 's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
Because the officials that abuse it know exactly which district courts and judges that will not refer to the law books, but will follow the will and agenda of the group that refers the issue to them. It’s unjust to allow one biased person who has been appointed to dictate what actions are to be taken by elected officials.
Like (14)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

National injunctions are a necessary court-based check against executive overreach, especially in the current political climate. Blocking district courts from issuing national injunctions is a clear partisan move that seeks to limit courts’ abilities to block the Trump administration’s most divisive — and often legally questionable — policies.

jimK's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
Preventing district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions would seriously overload the court system, allow parochially biased rulings in the interest of their districts instead of the National Interest, and force many more issues to have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. It would certainly overload and greatly delay court resolution of National issues. We need more concern as a Nation about doing what is best for the public good of all of us; and not what is just best for me, my state, my business, my religion and so forth. Limiting district court decisions to just their districts can only add to the divisiveness that plagues our Country.
Like (107)
Follow
Share
Bhuvanesh's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
This is an obviously partisan play for power by the Republicans. They would have supported nationwide injunctions by federal judges during President Obama's presidency.
Like (45)
Follow
Share
Jeff's Opinion
···
09/29/2019
No. These judges are some of the last protections for people with operational minds, protection from the orange goose-stepping fascist.
Like (41)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedSeptember 11th, 2019
    District Courts are just that. District. They should NOT be allowed to issue nationwide injunctions. Their authority is limited to their respective districts, as it should be.
    Like (54)
    Follow
    Share
    Preventing district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions would seriously overload the court system, allow parochially biased rulings in the interest of their districts instead of the National Interest, and force many more issues to have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. It would certainly overload and greatly delay court resolution of National issues. We need more concern as a Nation about doing what is best for the public good of all of us; and not what is just best for me, my state, my business, my religion and so forth. Limiting district court decisions to just their districts can only add to the divisiveness that plagues our Country.
    Like (107)
    Follow
    Share
    This is an obviously partisan play for power by the Republicans. They would have supported nationwide injunctions by federal judges during President Obama's presidency.
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    No. These judges are some of the last protections for people with operational minds, protection from the orange goose-stepping fascist.
    Like (41)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a core check and balance on the executive branch.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course! They only have jurisdiction over the states in their district, by definition. That’s why the system is set up as it is. They don’t have nationwide jurisdiction. Even appellate courts don’t have nationwide jurisdiction, only over their circuit. It’s a violation of separation of powers for a rogue judge to usurp presidential authority even for their own district, let alone the nation. Their rulings are nullities outside their jurisdiction and probably within it as well. Need a sound appellate court to reign in tyrannical district court judges.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Nationwide injunctions provide relief from executive over-reach and burdensome or even harmful requirements! Injunctions maintain the status quo until a final decision can be reached!
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    This Legislation would seriously overload our Court System. It would give the Executive Branch way too much power over the country, simultaneously forcing many more cases to the Supreme Court. They’re called Federal District Courts for a reason!
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal judges, federal law. That’s the whole point. It’s the whole country. The “districts” aren’t political, they are logistical. The Judiciary is a coequal branch of the Federal Government! Blatant stupidity and unconstitutional.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Because the officials that abuse it know exactly which district courts and judges that will not refer to the law books, but will follow the will and agenda of the group that refers the issue to them. It’s unjust to allow one biased person who has been appointed to dictate what actions are to be taken by elected officials.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    It seems to be a partisan political issue to be profitable to Republicans since they are the courts focus in several complaints. We need those courts to step in where grabs of power are dangerous. They are Federal courts.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    That’s a district court not a court of appeals! We need to get rid of liberal activist judges that like to legislate from the bench! Proof Positive? Trump has flipped the 9th Curcite Court in San Fran of all places! Let’s get our Republic Back! MAGA 2020🇺🇸👍💯😇
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    If a law is deemed unconstitutional by a judge who’s responsibility it is to interpret the law and the constitution, then the law should not remain in force anywhere in the country! This the job of the federal courts, to provide a check against Congress and the Executive branch and we all know that checks against the White House are needed today more than ever!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    No. The Executive branch has too much power as proven by the Trump administration stone walling on their testimonies during the Mueller investigation and now the investigation by the house committee. They don’t even produce documents under court order which is illegal. It is the constitutional job of the House and Senate to balance the power of the executive branch but they are not being given what they need to do their job. So, we don’t need a Republican trying to give Trump more power; we need Republicans to stand up and speak the truth about what they really think about Trump
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    It’s a Federal court. It should have Federal jurisdiction for decisions.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Why in the world would anyone propose something so incredibly stupid? It’s a federal district court. They work (in theory) in the interest of all citizens. You cannot limit an injunction to a district of its harmful to EVERYONE. Honestly, I continue to be disgusted by the lengths that the Republican Party will go to circumvent the will of the MAJORITY in furtherance of their own greed, personal interests, racism, and bigotry. That anyone supports the awful agenda they put forth is beyond me.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    No! This will inspire Trump to continue to manipulate and commit crimes and deviant schemes. No!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Especially in view of this administration -Trump’s erratic anti-fair government policies.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Uphold the American legal system as it is! Stop trying to change the rules for partisan politics!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    The court is the check on the other branches. Our forefathers created checks and balances for a reason.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE