By Steve Levy
In 2020, I published my book, Solutions to America’s Problems, a section of which was devoted to the need for a bill to be passed by Congress that would prohibit activists from forum shopping a sympathetic judge who would have the authority to unilaterally issue an injunction against a Presidential order.
This month, a federal district judge single-handedly prevented the President of the United States from cutting the government’s workforce to save tax dollars.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intercede and prevent this abuse of discretion. Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent:
Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) two billion taxpayer dollars?
It seems absurd that a single judge would be able to defy the will of the duly elected president of the United States with a decision that could have an enormous impact on the nation.
It should not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican.
I’m happy to report that legislation has been introduced that would codify the proposal that I spelled out several years ago to prevent these abuses from reoccurring in the future.
Here’s the relevant passage from my book:
…a new system should be developed whereby a lone judge is no longer able to enjoin a president’s action. Such an injunction should only be permissible via a three member appellate court. And thereafter, that decision should be subject to an expedited review by the Supreme Court within 30 days.
The proposal provides for greater oversight and checks and balances to prevent a single ideological activist from imposing his or her will on the nation.
The bill also would have the secondary benefit of bringing the matter that much closer to the Supreme Court, thereby erasing potentially several years of the delay as the matter winds its way through the court system.
Congressman Darryl Issa of California has introduced one such bill.
The bill states:
No court of the United States …shall issue an order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
The bill would protect both Democratic and Republican presidents from overreach by any one judge. Presidential policy should not be blocked lightly. Requiring such deliberation within the Appellate Division would provide a bulwark against unelected activists wishing to thwart the will of the people who elected a President to promote a specific platform.
Steve Levy is President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as a NYS Assemblyman, and host of “The Steve Levy Radio Show.” He is the author of “Solutions to America’s Problems” and “Bias in the Media.” www.SteveLevy.info, Twitter @SteveLevyNY, steve@commonsensestrategies.