Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) sparred with Democrat witness Kate Shaw over the power of the judiciary, in their ability to instate nationwide injunctions late on Tuesday. Kate Shaw is a law Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, an ABC News contributor, and a former employee of President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office.
Sen. Kennedy asked her a simple question. Have nationwide injunctions been abused in the past 4 months? To which she replied that she did not believe so. Kennedy fired back, pointing to her distaste for nationwide injunctions when they affect a sitting Democratic President. Such is the nature of politics, where partisans only challenge longstanding precedent when it impedes their political agenda.
🚨THAT'S GOTTA HURT: Senator Kennedy just eviscerated this Democrat witness' credibility on rogue judges and the weaponization of the judicial branch.
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 3, 2025
"I've read your stuff...I have little respect for your opinion...Now that President Trump's in the White House — who you dislike… pic.twitter.com/9du8Eqf1fP
Sen. Hawley had no sympathy for Shaw either.
Sen @HawleyMO Takes Down Professor's Hypocrisy
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) June 3, 2025
"So long as it is a Democrat president in office then we should have no nationwide injunctions, if it's a Republican president then this is absolutely fine and warranted. How can our system of law survive those principles?"… pic.twitter.com/xaehUKTAOI
Recommended
Nationwide injunctions are acceptable to Democrats, as long as they solely obstruct Republican goals. When they hinder Democrats, then we have an institutional problem.
Republicans, led by the Trump administration, have recently voiced concerns about judicial overreach, specifically in the ability of a district court judge to place a nationwide stay on President Trump's executive orders. In the first 100 days of his Presidency, an unprecedented number of 25 nationwide injunctions have been filed, tying up the policy goals of the President in the courts until their constitutionality is determined. Many Republicans have expressed that the judiciary should be unable to interfere with the will of the people.
This follows increased frustration of the Judicial branch, as both the Supreme Court and federal district courts have ruled unsympathetically against the Trump administration.
In early April, the Supreme Court placed a stay on the Trump Administration's Reduction in Force (RIF) initiative and later that month, blocked the deportation of Venezuelans pending judicial review. In May, the Supreme Court denied a stay on foreign aid payments, allowing $2 billion in funding to contractors and non-profit organizations to proceed. They later ruled against the President's deportation of illegal immigrants, for violating their due process rights, ultimately slowing the rate of deportations.
Lower courts have ruled against President Trump's unilateral tariff policy, prevented him from blocking the enrollment of foreign students at Harvard University, and stopped the attempted takeover and subsequent dismantling of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).
Join the conversation as a VIP Member