Nationwide injunctions are a form of judicial abuse by liberal judges

Rachel Bovard:

Nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge can halt the enforcement of a law or policy across the country—have been stymying President Trump’s agenda from the get-go. And Attorney General William Barr is getting fed up.

In a speech on Tuesday to the American Law Institute, Barr railed against national injunctions, noting that 37 of them have been issued against President Trump—more than one a month—compared to just two that were issued against President Obama during his first two years in office. According to Justice Department statistics cited by Barr, only 27 national injunctions were issued in all of the 20th century.

Barr is right to complain. The judiciary—which, it should be pointed out, the Framers envisioned as the weakest branch—has asserted breathtaking and unprecedented control over the policy process. One judge can now effectively cancel a policy with the stroke of a pen. As Barr put it, these injunctions give “a single judge the unprecedented power to render irrelevant the decisions of every other jurisdiction in the country.”

In other words, “one judge in one circuit gets to control the law until the Supreme Court intervenes.”

In practice, this has encouraged plaintiffs to forum shop—to seek the jurisdiction most friendly to their cause. It’s no accident that nearly all of the national injunctions issued against the Trump Administration have come from deep blue states.

This has also resulted in a measure of judicial absurdity. Individual judges have declared that President Trump cannot undo actions by executive order, despite the fact that many of those same actions were created by executive order in the first place. And a judge in one forum can issue an injunction contradicting one issued by a judge in another.

The consequence of these repeated injunctions is not just a dangerous erosion of the separation of powers, but chaos in our political system.
...

The judicial decision on DACA killed a potential compromise which could have led to doing somei=thing about the chaos on the border.  It is another example of how liberals are using the court to thwart rational policy decisions.  The Supreme court needs to be more proactive to stop these abuses.