The judicial overreach from district judges constantly ruling against the Trump administration and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved has certainly been in the news lately, as Townhall. It's gotten to such a level that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) weighed in with his Monday episode of "The Verdict," the podcast co-hosted with Ben Ferguson.
In discussing the newsworthy topic, Cruz issued several key reminders about these judges, as Ferguson asked for a "remedy" and a "strategy to fight back," reminding that "it's very frustrating," especially those who voted for President Donald Trump's agenda, which a majority of Americans support,
As Cruz reminded in response, "to be clear," the judges "were in every single case, elected by no one." For every one of these judges, they were appointed by the president and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with Cruz stressing that "no federal judge is elected."
For unelected judges, there is a few examples of checks and balances. There's impeachment, with Republican congressmen bringing forth plans to do just that, though Cruz was not optimistic about such an option.
"Impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against this abuse of power," Cruz shared, explaining how it's the similar process as impeaching an executive officer. While it only takes a majority in the House to impeach a judge, which could happen, "impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge," Cruz reminded. "It is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone, impeaching is the same thing."
Even if Republicans in the House were to unify, however, "the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are 0.00 percent," Cruz made clear.
In the Senate, Cruz reminded, you need two-thirds to convict and remove the person in office, in this case a federal judge. "Now, we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53 that means we would need at least 14 Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left-wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero; and understand why. The Democrats in the Senate hate Trump," he said, going on to add how these Democrats, so full of hatred against Trump, reacted to his address before a joint session of Congress earlier this month. "These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the president, refused to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13-year-old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer."
Recommended
Further, Democrats are actually quite supportive of these judges and what they're doing. Arguably the most prominent example was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with his comments last week. Democrats, Cruz reminded, are "cheering on these injunctions," as "they want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective."
Cruz also spoke further about the power of Congress beyond impeaching judges, which has no chance of resulting in removal. "Now, secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts," the senator added. "Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued a nationwide injunction? If it's not zero, it's damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited," the senator highlighted, speaking of that example.
However, Cruz did speak to examples he's more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, "sunshine, drawing attention to it."
In his role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, Cruz will be chairing hearings focused on such remedies.
"And one remedy to consider, [is] should we return to a system where you have a three-judge district court to consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes? I think there's a lot to be said for returning to that," Cruz offered. And, while he expects Democrats to be opposed, he added that "I think focusing on it, discussing it, shining a light on it, is important to counteract lawfare."
That brings us to "the real remedy," which "is nominating and confirming good principal judges to the federal courts, to the district courts, of appeals, to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these injunctions on appeal."
That also brings us to the Supreme Court. "The legal process, it's going to take the Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities right now, but the most likely mechanism to rein in this abuse is going to be appellate review, because the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else," Cruz further explained.
Ferguson chimed in to speak further about "a genuine frustration," especially towards Democrats, and a hunger for real results.
Americans are right to feel frustrated, Cruz laid out, given that from 1963-2023, of the 127 injunctions issued nationwide, just over half were issued against Trump during his first term, 64 to be exact. There's already been 37 injunctions against Trump in the first two months of his second term, Cruz further explained, aptly highlighting how "the numbers are dramatic."
The numbers are "pretty encouraging," though, when it comes to bringing sunlight to how it's Democrat-appointed judges going after Trump. Only five injunctions were by Republican-appointed judges, with 92.2 percent of injunctions against Trump in his first term coming from judges appointed by a Democrat, leading Cruz to point out that "the pattern is very simple." He further explained how "they're forum shopping, they're going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and looking for radicals who... hate the president and who will issue injunctions trying to fight back."
As "frustrating" as forum shopping might be, Cruz acknowledged, there's also remedies. Again, appointing better judges is one option, "the longer-term remedy," as Cruz put it. That "shorter-term remedy" is the appeals process.
The senator brought up a particularly hot button issue of birthright citizenship, with the president having signed an executive order not long into his second term to bring an end to the practice. Many judges have ruled against Trump there, and the administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Cruz brought up the example of Trump v. Casa as one of those cases. "Now the legality of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and that is going to let it be litigated. Well, three different district courts issued preliminary injunctions in response. Now, where were those courts? One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was in Massachusetts. So, there's a reason they're going to blue states and they're finding really left-wing judges," Cruz explained. "The Supreme Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions," he added, reminding how the administration has asked the Court to get involved, specifically "to partially stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions were over broad." As the senator explained it, Acting Solicitor General the United States Sarah Harris "asked for them to be limited to the plaintiffs in each case, or at most, the residents of the states challenging the order. So, it should not be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating."
It's being actively litigated now. "Now, it's possible the Supreme Court will decide it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait for full merits briefing, and that could take months or even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused," the senator added.
Ferguson also asked for Cruz's insight as to if injunctions create precedent. As he asked, "if there is a loss by a judge who does one of these injunctions, does that then have precedent over other judges around the country, or can other judges then just say, 'well, I'm going to take up the torch and buy more time and be an activist as well?'"
As Cruz explained, "it can definitely be the latter," but also, "it depends on where the loss occurs." If the Court of Appeals, for instance, reverses the injunctions, all district judges in that circuit are bound to follow. The Supreme Court would bind judges across the country. Thus, the senator revealed, "the real answer, hopefully, is to get this to the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This is clearly something that is being abused, and it is crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in."
What are the odds, then, that the Supreme Court will actually do that reining in, so Trump "can do his job," as Ferguson wondered?
While the issue is already at the Court right now, it comes down to if five justices are "willing to rein it in." A majority have to agree to take up such a case, though we have an example from earlier this month of how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberals in a 5-4 decision. The Court refused to vacate a ruling from a lower court, thus a ruling from a district judge forcing the Trump administration to reinstate billions in foreign aid remained.
"We have seen in some of these early cases, sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no, and, and so it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's going to come down to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and we'll see how they rule," Cruz pointed out. "I feel very confident that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are more than ready to rein in the abuse of nationwide injunctions, but I don't know if there are five justices or not."
Tyranny of Judges-Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked. @BenFergusonShow and I take a deep dive in this latest episode of #Verdict. https://t.co/EYq5XPgMSa
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 24, 2025
DOGE is finding billions of dollars in wasteful spending, and the Democrats are losing their minds as they realize their gravy train and woke projects are coming to an end.
Help us continue to report on DOGE's accomplishments and expose leftist corruption. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member