Washington – As the judicial orders against his mountain mount, President Trump has increased his attacks against federal judges in recent days, criticizing his authority and asking for his dismissal.
In particular, the president seems to have concentrated on the idea of limiting the ability of the Federal District judges to issue precautionary measures that have national implications.
“Illegal radical left -wing judges could lead to the destruction of our country!” Trump published Thursday night in Your social networks platform. “These people are crazy, who do not care, even a little, about the repercussions of their very dangerous and incorrect decisions and decisions.”
While Trump is enraged on social networks, calling the Supreme Court of the United States that limits the ability of the district courts to grant precautionary measures, a Republican from California in Congress is working to control the judges that review Trump's powers.
The representative Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the Law of Declarations No Rogue, or Norra, last month to limit the ability of federal judges to issue cautious throughout the country, reducing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.
ISSA's legislation has gained ground among several prominent republicans, including the president, who is determined to advance in his anti -immigration agenda despite the setbacks in the courts.
“You can't stop that with a judge sitting behind a bank that has no idea what is happening, which turns out to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump said Friday from the Oval office.
In Washington, where Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. ISSA's bill reflects a broader impulse of Republicans to repress the Judiciary, which has proven to be the only area in which Trump meets a consistent opposition.
After Trump's example, some Republicans are pointing to judges who consider “activists” for the accusation. Elon Musk, one of the closest advisors of the president and the issue of several judicial cases, echoed those calls last week, destination In X, “this is a judicial coup.”
In the innumerable cases of the Court that Trump faces for his dozens of broad orders and executive actions since he assumed the position in January, perhaps the most pointed reprimand arrived earlier this month, when the United States district judge, James Boasberg, of the Columbia district,
ordered the government To turn the airplanes that carry deportation immigrants. The planes landed at their destination in El Salvador, and the judge has been fighting with the president's lawyers about whether they challenged his order.
The episode intensified the democratic concerns that the Trump administration can refuse to follow the orders of a judge, launching a “constitutional crisis” and threatening US democracy. For Republicans, Basberg's order became another notch in a long line of judicial attacks against Trump.
“The mandates are nothing more than a partisan judicial overreach, and they have interrupted the president's ability to carry out his legal constitutional duty,” Issa said by presenting Norra at a hearing of the Judicial Committee of the Chamber. “This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy throughout the country … something that this Constitution never contemplated.”
Boasberg, the judge who tried to block the flights of Venezuelan immigrants who finally landed in a prison in San Salvador, was appointed for the Superior Court by President George W. Bush and raised to the Federal Bank by President Obama. Many other judges who have hindered Trump's efforts, such as the prohibition of transgender troops of the military or attempts to paralyze the United States Agency for international development, were appointed by democratic presidents.
Justin Levitt, professor of constitutional law at the Faculty of Law of Loyola in Los Angeles, said that the power of the judges of the District Court to make decisions that are binding at the national level have bothered the Democrats and Republicans for decades.
In recent years, the federal courts of the District and the appeal limited the portions of the attempts of the former President Biden to forgive student debt and parts of the Law of Health Care at Low Price of Obama.
“This is actually a serious problem that has emerged several times on both sides of the hall,” Levitt said. “It is a bit difficult to know how seriously take this particular version because, depending on who tends to be in power at any time, different members of Congress really seem to really grant this type of aggressive judicial action.”
By presenting Norra to the Judicial Committee, Issa presented a table that shows the number of mandates that the presidents have faced in the position. In his first term, Trump received 64, well above former presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). Trump already faces 12 mandates in his second term, according to the ISSA table.
“The involvement of this picture is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, instead of Donald Trump having done something wrong,” said representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) at the hearing. “The reason why there are 64 mandates against him is because he is trampling the legislators and expenses of the United States Congress.”
Erwin Chemendnsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law Faculty, said that ISSA's bill was a “terrible idea” that would sow chaos in federal courts. In practice, said Chemendnsky, the measure would probably create contradictory decisions between the districts, which makes Americans be subject to different rules in different parts of the country in complex issues, including the citizenship of birth law or the right of a transgender soldier to be in the army.
“If the Northern District of California issues an order that tells a cabinet secretary not to do something, the cabinet secretary will say that they are not bound by that order outside the northern district of California,” he said.
Chemerinsky said the bill is a hammer in search of a nail, since the national mandates issued by the district courts already have a limited effect. Such problems are often appeal rapidly, and if a Federal Court of Appeals reverses the judge of the lower court, a case could reach the United States Supreme Court.
However, he acknowledged that the issuance of national mandates has become more frequent as the nation's partisan division becomes more acute, with plaintiffs at both ends of the political spectrum “judges purchases” for ideological allies in the bank.
“The conservatives of the administration biden continuously went to the courts of Texas to obtain precautionary measures, and the liberals have done so in the Trump administration,” he said.
Judge James Boasberg, of the DC district court, shown in 2023, has generated attacks by President Trump after ordering planes that transport Venezuelan migrants to turn during deportation flights.
(Bloomberg through Getty Images)
Republican legislators anxious to defend the president have jumped to support the legislation. He left the Judicial Committee of the Chamber, in which Issa is located, at the beginning of March and is expected to reach the floor of the camera to vote soon.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO.), Another burning supporter of Trump in Congress, announced On Thursday that would also bring legislation in the Senate to limit national mandates.
“You can feel when the impulse comes for a bill in which you are working,” said Jonathan Wilcox, ISSA spokesman. “When the White House is aligned, the Senate is involved, leadership is positive. You don't understand it every day.”
ISSA's legislation marks how Republicans have completely aligned behind the president since he assumed the position in 2017. At that time, Issa, a conservative who represents the southwest corner of California, Broken with your group to join the Democrats to request an independent investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Issa faced some difficult challenges in the elections since then, but easily won the 48th position of the Congress district in November with 59% of the votes. Since then he has positioned himself as one of the president's strongest allies in California. Earl this month, Issa said It would name Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Despite his support, and his graphic, Issa insisted during the hearing of the committee that Norra was not about Trump.
“We are not approving a law for the current occupant of the White House,” Issa said. “We are approving a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch and the reasonable challenges to the actions of an Executive Power, now and for the rest of the many years of our great Republic.”
ISSA's bill also includes an amendment by representative Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former Kansas Attorney General, who would allow a case presented by the States and involving multiple districts to be reviewed by a panel of three judges, with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Levitt questioned the practical capacity of ISSA's measure to cure Trump's frustrations with the actions of the district judges about his executive orders. The exception cited in the ISSA bill refers to the Administrative Procedure Law, a 1946 law that gives supervision to federal courts regarding the actions of federal agencies, Levitt said.
When the plaintiffs demand to block the actions implemented by the Executive Order, they are actually demanding the agency responsible for carrying out the President's Directorate, agencies that judges could still order under the Law of Administrative Procedure, Levitt said.
In the cases that have recently enraged Trump, such as the orders of the judges who block their impulse to deport the alleged members of Venezuelan gangs without due process, or to eliminate the citizenship of birth rights, Levitt said that the bill of ISSA would have no effect, since the defendants in those cases would be gabinet level agencies that are subject to the APA.
Although Levitt did not think that ISSA's bill achieved the weakening of the Judiciary that Trump seems to desire, he warned that Republicans are walking along a path of those who could regret when they are the minority party again and need a relief by precautionary mandate.
“Does the same conservative decisions oppose the same way that affected the Biden administration in the same way that is protesting here?” Levitt asked.
Chemerinsky said that ISSA's bill is more worrying at a time when the Trump administration seems to be destined to weaken the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.
“You have a president who is simultaneously trying to define the presidential powers more widely than anyone in the history of the United States,” he said. “This bill is trying to take control of that power at this crucial moment.”
