Major Case on District Judges’ Power at the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today about the power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The ACLJ filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of the state of West Virginia, arguing that rogue activist judges are abusing their authority by endlessly blocking President Trump’s Executive orders. ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow and West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey were present at the Supreme Court today for the oral arguments.

Just how out of control are these nationwide injunctions? Here’s a shocking stat: 67% of all nationwide injunctions in U.S. history have been issued against the Trump Administration. And President Trump is barely five months into his second term.

Today the Justices seek to answer this question: How much authority does a district judge have? According to U.S. law, district judges are limited to the jurisdiction of their particular court. So district judges issuing injunctions that affect the entire nation are overstepping their authority.

Notably, some of the Justices have spoken out against nationwide injunctions in the past, including Justice Elena Kagan. Speaking on a panel at Northwestern University School of Law in 2022, Justice Kagan condemned “forum shopping” based on who’s the sitting U.S. President: “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.” So it will be interesting to see how she rules now that the Trump Administration is in power.

Justice Samuel Alito also raised a salient point: 

Let’s put out of our minds the merits of this [case] and just look at the abstract question of universal injunctions. What is your response to what some people think is the practical problem? And the practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges, and they are dedicated, and they are scholarly, and I’m not impugning their motives in any way, but sometimes they’re wrong. And all Article III judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that “I am right, and I can do whatever I want.”

Justice Alito summarized perfectly the issues with the nationwide injunctions. Too many district judges are suffering from an “occupational disease” of believing their opinion trumps the Executive branch.

As most of you know, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow has a longstanding history of appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. He weighed in on the possible outcome of today’s hearing:

I can tell you just by the oral arguments that it is a very closely divided Court. It’s not clear where [all] the Justices [stand]. . . . The argument is still going on right now. . . . I’ve been able to listen to it and read transcripts as they were coming. And here’s the reality. Looking at it right now, it’s a 4-4 case. And [Justice] Gorsuch could be the determining factor here. And he did not seem very sympathetic to President Trump’s solicitor general.

As Jay noted, if the Justices side with the ACLJ’s amicus brief, then Justice Alito’s position will be the basis for the victory.

At the end of the day, do we want a district judge in California issuing an injunction that affects citizens in Texas, Mississippi, or West Virginia (like our client)? This is not what the Founders intended in establishing Article III judicial powers. We believe that the Supreme Court should tell district court judges to respect the limits of their jurisdiction and the Constitution’s judicial power.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of today’s oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if rogue activist judges can keep issuing nationwide injunctions to block Executive orders. Also, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo weighed in on the importance of district judges not overstepping their authority.

Watch the full broadcast below: