Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett stated during a Monday interview that federal judges lack constitutional authority to issue nationwide injunctions that block President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Jarrett noted that the Supreme Court is expected to deliver a significant ruling soon, which could clarify the extent to which lower court judges can prevent the implementation of Trump’s policies nationwide. Speaking on “The Evening Edit,” he argued that politically motivated judges have taken advantage of legal ambiguities to impose broad injunctions against Trump’s policies, despite not having the constitutional power to do so.
“There is absolutely nothing in the law that allows these district judges to order anything beyond their own physical district,” Jarrett told Fox Business host Elizabeth MacDonald. “Their jurisdiction is narrowly defined under the Constitution to cases and controversies before them, which means they may not issue orders nationwide that impact millions of people who never set foot inside their courtroom.”
He went on to say that political bias, not judicial conduct, was tainting rulings and leading to so many nationwide injuctions against Trump’s executive actions. “In the age of Trump, judges are ignoring their duty, ignoring the law. They’re driven by political bias, and the result is unelected judges who think they have unfettered veto power over the president, and the truth is they do not,” the legal expert said.
When asked if Congress could step in should the Supreme Court fail to curb the overreach, Jarrett responded without hesitation. “Oh, absolutely, and I think that’s really necessary. The House already passed a bill restricting nationwide injunctions. It’s up to the Senate now to approve it, pass it on to the president for signature,” Jarrett said, adding that the Legislative Branch has a right and a duty to act.
“Congress created the federal court system, Liz, and it has the power to constrain it. Trump’s been in office less than five months already, [with] 170 lawsuits filed against him, 40 injunctions issued to stop him from implementing his agenda,” Jarrett said. “Voters put him into office for a reason, and judges need to respect that.”
Federal judges issued 25 broad injunctions blocking Trump’s second-term agenda within his first 100 days, according to a May report from the Congressional Research Service. In comparison, former President Joe Biden faced only four such rulings early in his term, while Trump’s first term saw six.
In May, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether district judges have the authority to impose nationwide blocks on the administration’s birthright citizenship order. The justices may ultimately limit the reach of these expansive injunctions, the Daily Caller reported.
