President Trump and his supporters are mounting increasingly noisy attacks on lower-court judges. But their claims combine shameless hypocrisy with shameful distortions of the facts.
Trump, and the judges he has nominated, are obviously outliers. While judicial philosophy is a major factor in judicial nominations, until Trump, there was a general assumption that experience and demonstrated competence were crucial factors. Such considerations have been lacking in Trump's judicial nominations, as well as his cabinet choices.
Nice look at the data. Nationwide injunctions have been political and perhaps reflect a moribund Congress. While I understand the jurisdictional appellate pathway, there is an incongruity with the appellate court's geographical jurisdiction. The DC Cir has nationwide jurisdiction, but the 5th or 9th (red vs blue) do not. Why not have all nationwide injunctive appeals decided by the DC Cir- politics aside?
Hear, hear! I find it interesting that the new D.Mass rule applies only to a particular category of cases defined by the nature of the relief being sought.
Excellent analysis (and, I found the 'arcane' bonus trivia to be very intriguing!). The data are very convincing and strongly support the conclusion stated that many of us held anecdotally: "that the problem is the policies—not the judges."
Funny how the data show how the accusers are the ones actually manipulating the system. Projection as usual. I hope our judicial system can get back its integrity. Thanks for the detailed analysis. And good luck testifying. Not that you’ll need it. I’m at least glad for voices like yours in these times.
Beryl Howe denied the Peace Institute TRO and now Trump weeks later has basically shut it down. She is a good judge. Why did she say no and what recourse do they have now. Btw love your writings
You did a stellar job on Executive Orders. Can we have your thoughts on nationwide injunctions. I know they have always been "disfavored" but isn't that mostly because there hasn't been such a raft of actions by ANYONE that so adversely affects people in ALL states? Judge K on mifepristone was trying to say that people in states where it is LEGAL can't be allowed to use it. These cases are saying "the issue is whether it is legal in any state to do what trump is doing."
Reading your comment brought Steve's dispatch "133. Birthright Citizenship (Sort of) Reaches the Court" to mind. Not being a lawyer I found it to be quite substantive on the issue universal injunctions & informing of Steve's POV. Your mileage may vary.
thanks. I read it I think but will check it out again. Ah yes. Actually, it was the post from April 24 he linked to that brought up my sense that there was hostility to the use of these (on Gorsuch) and on the problem of conflicting rules in place while the cases got to an actual decision. An injunction is a PAUSE. The district courts' DECISION wouldn't be universal (other than the idea of unconstitutionality if that's what it found) and the courts could do the usual thing: take it to circuits, and if circuits conflict, to the Extremes.
That's a slow process, though. And the hurt to so many is coming so thick and fast.....
Nation-wide injunctions: GOPers love them coming out of single-judge districts/divisions in Tejas — Judges O'Connor and Kacsmaryk — but of course denounce such rulings from "librul" judges in Blue-state districts. Supremes need to weigh in on this tactic, one way or the other, as it will continue to resurface at the appellate level, with contradictory rulings.
Again people are spending more time on the reactions and judgements to whatever Donald does, and are presuming that whatever it is that he is doing couldn't possibily be so bad as to merit this many nationwide injunctions. The fact that we are chosing this specific time to hold hearings and deep discussions about this concept says a lot more than what any of these discussions will end up saying at this time.
I would have thought that, given how lawless this administration is acting, these rulings would have helped emphasize how deranged it is being, but that seems to be beside the point.
You mentioned 100 EO’s. Biden was up to what, 90 in his first week? There is a lot to be done when half our kids are identity-confused, we have no idea who is in our country, and our economy was “great” according to our former president, who was not even cognitively competent. Biden allowed legislation that allowed no age restriction or parental consent for any minor to get puberty blockers and five times the amount of synthetic hormones that an adult would with the correct gender (don’t start a fight you won’t win; I am extremely versed in this topic). These are used off-label, so none of them are even FDA approved for gender affirming care. You did nothing regarding the Parental Secrecy Act. Tens of thousands of regretful young adults are not covered for anything to undo the damage done by 100% covered double mastectomies on children. Where were you then? And the phallectomies and vaginoplasties: do you know about these procedures or should I explain them?
Two minutes from my home, we have illegal Chinese immigrants working in large hotels like the Enclave, my former party spot as a kid. Our administration has found gang members, kingpins, more sex trafficking despite already being #1 in the world for human trafficking before you allowed him to open our borders.
You do not work for us. You do not care about us. You cannot defend the actions of your relentless warpath and bloodlust against a guy who is trying to keep us safe while we have no clue who else is here. Most Americans across the board approve of these criminals going back home. Why are you protecting them?
As for Wikipedia, when I was in both high school and college, Wikipedia was not allowed as a cited source because anyone can contribute, including hoaxes. I looked it up to see if we still maintain those standards in education 20 years later, and it’s right here.
This part right here in that cited source says what I advise people all the time:
“If you do start with Wikipedia, you should make sure articles you read contain citations–and then go read the cited articles to check the accuracy of what you read on Wikipedia.”
This also goes for mainstream media. If I want to prove a point, I’ll find an article proving it. We know how this game works and it’s stupid. We already both know that there are links supporting every side of the sun.
So by saying that, you really don't know how this game works. Start by reading Steve's article more deeply, if you care. I am not going line by line until YOU do.
And by the way, you are going to need to show some genuine gratitude for the undeserved attention you are being given. These people are just a little more trustworthy than the likes of you, Sarah Gregory.
I’m sorry that you have such negative impressions of me. The fact is I want to have a conversation about this. You can call me names and tell me I “need decaf” as much as you want, but can we discuss this? Can me and you talk point to point and find out why you believe you are right so that I can possibly understand your side better? I’d far rather put myself in your shoes so we can find some dialogue because anything is better than the same exact nonsense that has continued because people won’t talk.
Links are fine. I’ll look at yours and you promise to look at mine. Have a real, adult conversation about this? I’ve been begging and that is not to say people with your viewpoint are the only ones to do this, but refusing to even speak on anything in my comment is probably the most unproductive thing that can happen.
I fully agree. It’s unfortunate that I made a comprehensive statement regarding several assertions made in the article, and instead of discussing even one part of it with me, I’m told to appreciate the “attention”, apologize to Steve, give him gratitude, consider decaf, I’m not being genuine, I’m untrustworthy, I’m using victimhood, and the original insults by Steve himself were deleted.
Everyone who responded with the usual: Great discussion, guys.
I’m looking for dialogue, where we can talk about what was said in the article, and instead I’m told to read it again, read it deeper, etc. Not a single mention of the substance of my comment. There is a 0% chance that anyone with a rock solid opinion on any of this will actually talk to me about my concerns. They don’t come from being chronically online and nosy, nor are they due to any loyalty to a particular party. This is personal, it has affected me in very serious ways in which I guarantee not one person who has thrown jabs at me would have an iota of empathy.
I have tried to have conversations with people that have a singular purpose: continue to hate the current president and denounce any actions taken within his administration. Anyone who deviates from a precise criteria are insulted and gaslit, no conversation is allowed and we remain stagnant.
If I happen to see that someone is willing to have an adult conversation about anything in my original reply, I’ll return, but I don’t participate in personal insults.
This “explanation” is for the chronically online community that has a shrinking concept of the real world. Main$tream media, some out of touch celebrities, chronically online adults, kids who don’t know better, and dirty politicians and judges comprise the minority of Americans that still cheer for endless genders and preschool drag shows, due process for illegal immigrants, and a president that was not even remotely competent for the job, and no one bothered to tell anyone how bad it was until he had to show up for a debate.
We have zero reason to trust you or anything you say. Please explain why you don’t care about the open borders issue. We already allowed one million per year to live in our country. That doesn’t include those on student or work visas. Now that we’ve allowed an egregious amount of people, you think they should all stay, including known terrorists, gang members, cartels and traffickers? They should get due process? I’ve been in court before. We don’t even get due process for a traffic violation but these guys should be given more money than I make in a month, on top of free housing and food? I’m curious where you fall on the income line, sir. Who all do you work for? And for those who don’t comment but see your posts, why is a child allowed to get free gender affirming care, which they will undoubtedly regret because they are children, but you think Trump is the problem? We do not trust you, or perpetually biased news (we don’t trust any of them, period), or federal judges that block Trump’s presidential orders but didn’t protect our kids (THIS is personal) or any of us for that matter during Biden’s term. Seriously, these criminals are two minutes from my family and you’re so anti-Trump that this means nothing to you. I’m just disgusted that you want to explain everything away while Biden’s enormous mess has left us in peril.
Excellent article, including the trivia, but it set my mind to wondering about two issues which I thought you might give more attention to in the future. I understand you probably have already dealt with some of this. I either missed them though I keep a file of your work .
The first would be on the question of nation-wide injunctions. I've seen this as a case of whose ox is being gored. I really disliked them against Presidents Obama and Biden but thought they were very sound when applied against Trump policies. Politically biased on my part? Possibly, but also it seems the issues, especially in the Trump cases, the harms were really more national in scope thereby justifying nation-wide TROs and PIs. Still, I would be more comfortable in seeing the type of even-handed approach which I associate with your writing.
This immediately morphs into the issue of forum shopping. The current administration is indeed shameless and hypocritical and, as your at a based shows, incorrect in claiming that the response is an example of forum shopping. I'll have to go back to the article and check hoping there is a link to the issue of forum shopping.
Thank you (and your research assistant) for the impressive data analysis, while also finding time and energy to translate the data into plain English for us. Big contribution. Much appreciated.
I would like to see Steve weigh in on the unitary executive theory. With one exception, these lower court injunctions depend on the continued viability of the Humphrey's Executor case and otherwise not adopting the unitary executive theory. SCOTUS will probably blow this all up.
Just to be clear, *most* of the 46 cases with rulings blocking Trump policies have nothing at all to do with Humphrey's Executor or the unitary executive. So even if the Court is inclined to overrule Humphrey's Executor, that wouldn't "blow this all up."
Terrific work
Thank you for your efforts. I’m glad to know you’re reviewing and assessing these rulings.
Trump, and the judges he has nominated, are obviously outliers. While judicial philosophy is a major factor in judicial nominations, until Trump, there was a general assumption that experience and demonstrated competence were crucial factors. Such considerations have been lacking in Trump's judicial nominations, as well as his cabinet choices.
Nice look at the data. Nationwide injunctions have been political and perhaps reflect a moribund Congress. While I understand the jurisdictional appellate pathway, there is an incongruity with the appellate court's geographical jurisdiction. The DC Cir has nationwide jurisdiction, but the 5th or 9th (red vs blue) do not. Why not have all nationwide injunctive appeals decided by the DC Cir- politics aside?
Hear, hear! I find it interesting that the new D.Mass rule applies only to a particular category of cases defined by the nature of the relief being sought.
Excellent analysis (and, I found the 'arcane' bonus trivia to be very intriguing!). The data are very convincing and strongly support the conclusion stated that many of us held anecdotally: "that the problem is the policies—not the judges."
Funny how the data show how the accusers are the ones actually manipulating the system. Projection as usual. I hope our judicial system can get back its integrity. Thanks for the detailed analysis. And good luck testifying. Not that you’ll need it. I’m at least glad for voices like yours in these times.
Beryl Howe denied the Peace Institute TRO and now Trump weeks later has basically shut it down. She is a good judge. Why did she say no and what recourse do they have now. Btw love your writings
Fascinating stuff.
You did a stellar job on Executive Orders. Can we have your thoughts on nationwide injunctions. I know they have always been "disfavored" but isn't that mostly because there hasn't been such a raft of actions by ANYONE that so adversely affects people in ALL states? Judge K on mifepristone was trying to say that people in states where it is LEGAL can't be allowed to use it. These cases are saying "the issue is whether it is legal in any state to do what trump is doing."
Reading your comment brought Steve's dispatch "133. Birthright Citizenship (Sort of) Reaches the Court" to mind. Not being a lawyer I found it to be quite substantive on the issue universal injunctions & informing of Steve's POV. Your mileage may vary.
thanks. I read it I think but will check it out again. Ah yes. Actually, it was the post from April 24 he linked to that brought up my sense that there was hostility to the use of these (on Gorsuch) and on the problem of conflicting rules in place while the cases got to an actual decision. An injunction is a PAUSE. The district courts' DECISION wouldn't be universal (other than the idea of unconstitutionality if that's what it found) and the courts could do the usual thing: take it to circuits, and if circuits conflict, to the Extremes.
That's a slow process, though. And the hurt to so many is coming so thick and fast.....
Thanks for your insights... Fascinating in theory & terrifying in practice for us especially those already hurt.
Nation-wide injunctions: GOPers love them coming out of single-judge districts/divisions in Tejas — Judges O'Connor and Kacsmaryk — but of course denounce such rulings from "librul" judges in Blue-state districts. Supremes need to weigh in on this tactic, one way or the other, as it will continue to resurface at the appellate level, with contradictory rulings.
Again people are spending more time on the reactions and judgements to whatever Donald does, and are presuming that whatever it is that he is doing couldn't possibily be so bad as to merit this many nationwide injunctions. The fact that we are chosing this specific time to hold hearings and deep discussions about this concept says a lot more than what any of these discussions will end up saying at this time.
I would have thought that, given how lawless this administration is acting, these rulings would have helped emphasize how deranged it is being, but that seems to be beside the point.
Thank you so much. It’s great to have the facts.
We get it. You hate Trump.
You mentioned 100 EO’s. Biden was up to what, 90 in his first week? There is a lot to be done when half our kids are identity-confused, we have no idea who is in our country, and our economy was “great” according to our former president, who was not even cognitively competent. Biden allowed legislation that allowed no age restriction or parental consent for any minor to get puberty blockers and five times the amount of synthetic hormones that an adult would with the correct gender (don’t start a fight you won’t win; I am extremely versed in this topic). These are used off-label, so none of them are even FDA approved for gender affirming care. You did nothing regarding the Parental Secrecy Act. Tens of thousands of regretful young adults are not covered for anything to undo the damage done by 100% covered double mastectomies on children. Where were you then? And the phallectomies and vaginoplasties: do you know about these procedures or should I explain them?
Two minutes from my home, we have illegal Chinese immigrants working in large hotels like the Enclave, my former party spot as a kid. Our administration has found gang members, kingpins, more sex trafficking despite already being #1 in the world for human trafficking before you allowed him to open our borders.
You do not work for us. You do not care about us. You cannot defend the actions of your relentless warpath and bloodlust against a guy who is trying to keep us safe while we have no clue who else is here. Most Americans across the board approve of these criminals going back home. Why are you protecting them?
As for Wikipedia, when I was in both high school and college, Wikipedia was not allowed as a cited source because anyone can contribute, including hoaxes. I looked it up to see if we still maintain those standards in education 20 years later, and it’s right here.
https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-wikipedia
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
This part right here in that cited source says what I advise people all the time:
“If you do start with Wikipedia, you should make sure articles you read contain citations–and then go read the cited articles to check the accuracy of what you read on Wikipedia.”
This also goes for mainstream media. If I want to prove a point, I’ll find an article proving it. We know how this game works and it’s stupid. We already both know that there are links supporting every side of the sun.
So by saying that, you really don't know how this game works. Start by reading Steve's article more deeply, if you care. I am not going line by line until YOU do.
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
Hilarious. Consider decaf. And reading the piece.
Impressive victimhood. Rant on, Florida Gal.
And by the way, you are going to need to show some genuine gratitude for the undeserved attention you are being given. These people are just a little more trustworthy than the likes of you, Sarah Gregory.
I’m sorry that you have such negative impressions of me. The fact is I want to have a conversation about this. You can call me names and tell me I “need decaf” as much as you want, but can we discuss this? Can me and you talk point to point and find out why you believe you are right so that I can possibly understand your side better? I’d far rather put myself in your shoes so we can find some dialogue because anything is better than the same exact nonsense that has continued because people won’t talk.
Links are fine. I’ll look at yours and you promise to look at mine. Have a real, adult conversation about this? I’ve been begging and that is not to say people with your viewpoint are the only ones to do this, but refusing to even speak on anything in my comment is probably the most unproductive thing that can happen.
First off, that isn't geniune given your non-responses to Alyssa. And then you wonder why people are irked... you are incredible.
Second, maybe you should apologize to Steve. Do you understand why?
There should be more respectful conversations on this forum. That’s what a liberal democracy is all about.
I fully agree. It’s unfortunate that I made a comprehensive statement regarding several assertions made in the article, and instead of discussing even one part of it with me, I’m told to appreciate the “attention”, apologize to Steve, give him gratitude, consider decaf, I’m not being genuine, I’m untrustworthy, I’m using victimhood, and the original insults by Steve himself were deleted.
Everyone who responded with the usual: Great discussion, guys.
I’m looking for dialogue, where we can talk about what was said in the article, and instead I’m told to read it again, read it deeper, etc. Not a single mention of the substance of my comment. There is a 0% chance that anyone with a rock solid opinion on any of this will actually talk to me about my concerns. They don’t come from being chronically online and nosy, nor are they due to any loyalty to a particular party. This is personal, it has affected me in very serious ways in which I guarantee not one person who has thrown jabs at me would have an iota of empathy.
I have tried to have conversations with people that have a singular purpose: continue to hate the current president and denounce any actions taken within his administration. Anyone who deviates from a precise criteria are insulted and gaslit, no conversation is allowed and we remain stagnant.
If I happen to see that someone is willing to have an adult conversation about anything in my original reply, I’ll return, but I don’t participate in personal insults.
This “explanation” is for the chronically online community that has a shrinking concept of the real world. Main$tream media, some out of touch celebrities, chronically online adults, kids who don’t know better, and dirty politicians and judges comprise the minority of Americans that still cheer for endless genders and preschool drag shows, due process for illegal immigrants, and a president that was not even remotely competent for the job, and no one bothered to tell anyone how bad it was until he had to show up for a debate.
We have zero reason to trust you or anything you say. Please explain why you don’t care about the open borders issue. We already allowed one million per year to live in our country. That doesn’t include those on student or work visas. Now that we’ve allowed an egregious amount of people, you think they should all stay, including known terrorists, gang members, cartels and traffickers? They should get due process? I’ve been in court before. We don’t even get due process for a traffic violation but these guys should be given more money than I make in a month, on top of free housing and food? I’m curious where you fall on the income line, sir. Who all do you work for? And for those who don’t comment but see your posts, why is a child allowed to get free gender affirming care, which they will undoubtedly regret because they are children, but you think Trump is the problem? We do not trust you, or perpetually biased news (we don’t trust any of them, period), or federal judges that block Trump’s presidential orders but didn’t protect our kids (THIS is personal) or any of us for that matter during Biden’s term. Seriously, these criminals are two minutes from my family and you’re so anti-Trump that this means nothing to you. I’m just disgusted that you want to explain everything away while Biden’s enormous mess has left us in peril.
I would trade everything that is happening now for Biden's so-called "peril". Excuse you, Sarah Gregory.
“Forget It, Sarah Gregory,” coming soon to Netflix.
"Bless her heart" doesn't really fit here.
Excellent article, including the trivia, but it set my mind to wondering about two issues which I thought you might give more attention to in the future. I understand you probably have already dealt with some of this. I either missed them though I keep a file of your work .
The first would be on the question of nation-wide injunctions. I've seen this as a case of whose ox is being gored. I really disliked them against Presidents Obama and Biden but thought they were very sound when applied against Trump policies. Politically biased on my part? Possibly, but also it seems the issues, especially in the Trump cases, the harms were really more national in scope thereby justifying nation-wide TROs and PIs. Still, I would be more comfortable in seeing the type of even-handed approach which I associate with your writing.
This immediately morphs into the issue of forum shopping. The current administration is indeed shameless and hypocritical and, as your at a based shows, incorrect in claiming that the response is an example of forum shopping. I'll have to go back to the article and check hoping there is a link to the issue of forum shopping.
Thank you (and your research assistant) for the impressive data analysis, while also finding time and energy to translate the data into plain English for us. Big contribution. Much appreciated.
I would like to see Steve weigh in on the unitary executive theory. With one exception, these lower court injunctions depend on the continued viability of the Humphrey's Executor case and otherwise not adopting the unitary executive theory. SCOTUS will probably blow this all up.
I've weighed in before, e.g., here: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-125-the-federal-reserve-and; and here: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-121-the-unitary-executive-runs.
Just to be clear, *most* of the 46 cases with rulings blocking Trump policies have nothing at all to do with Humphrey's Executor or the unitary executive. So even if the Court is inclined to overrule Humphrey's Executor, that wouldn't "blow this all up."
Thank you for pointing it out, giving easy access and for not being rude that I missed that you had already done this before.