Where did all the conservative hand-wringing over judicial restraint go?
By Ruth Marcus
“Something has powerfully gone awry,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the Supreme Court this week. “This is not how our constitutional structure is supposed to operate.”
Prelogar was arguing against a federal judge’s order requiring the Biden administration to reinstate its predecessor’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. In the annals of judicial overreach, the case presents a particularly flagrant example: a single Trump-appointed judge in Texas effectively dictating U.S. immigration and foreign policy.
Flagrant, but not unusual. One day later, a different Trump-appointed judge, in Louisiana, prohibited the Biden administration from implementing its plans to lift the pandemic border policy known as Title 42. The order is temporary, but the judge has signaled his intention to require the administration to keep in place the public health rule preventing migrants seeking asylum from entering the country.
-snip-
The shift is built on a phenomenon that took off during the Trump administration but has persisted during the Biden presidency: the use of nationwide injunctions — orders issued by a single district court, often strategically chosen for the likelihood of finding a sympathetic judge, that apply beyond the immediate parties in the case to completely block an administration policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/29/federal-judges-where-did-judicial-restraint-nationwide-injunction-immigration-title-42-mask-mandate/
= new reply since forum marked as read
