The battle between the White House and the federal judiciary is coming to a head, and it's likely to end at the Supreme Court. A flurry of court injunctions issued against President Trump in the first two months of his new administration has prompted major pushback from the White House, and new legislation from Republicans in Congress to restrict federal rulings. But the ultimate arbiter of the issue could end up being the nation's highest court, which cannot avoid it much longer. "The Supreme Court has been kicking the can down the road on nationwide injunctions for almost a decade now," says Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law-Houston. "It's an issue even more since Trump came to office, because judges are issuing these orders that are even hard to appeal right away because they're so broad."
"I think the court will resolve this," he continues. "But I don't know how the court will decide it, because I think Chief Justice Roberts has this fear of doing anything that will upset people, and this is a case where no matter what the court does on injunctions, it will upset people."
In the meantime, Republicans in the House and Senate continue to push legislation to restrict federal rulings to apply to the plaintiff and the individual jurisdiction, rather than the entire country. Blackman believes that is helpful, but there are still legal questions to be decided by the high court. "It's not just how broad the rulings are, but the timing," he tells KTRH. "Some of these rulings are issued immediately, and the government can't even appeal before the ruling goes into effect."
"I think it's just a bit arrogant for a single judge to dictate federal policy nationally, without even letting other judges or the Supreme Court opine on the matter."
Photo: Fred Schilling, Collection of th