Newou can listen to Fox News articles!
R-Mo. Sen. Josh Hawley of the University of Pennsylvania law professor on Tuesday over the number of national judicial injunctions imposed by district judges on matters that President Donald Trump cuts the country’s foreign funding and federal funding and federal workforce.
“Perhaps the ‘most dangerous branch’: District Judge v. At a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, titled “Trump,” Holy displayed a bar chart to claim that national injunctions until the 1960s surged when Trump took office in his first semester, then surged when he fell dramatically between former President Joe Biden House.
“You don’t think this is a bit out of place right now?” Holy asked Kate Shaw, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.
Trump criticizes Rand Pearl for opposing the tax bill: “I won’t vote for everything.”
Sen. Josh Hawley of R-Missouri will speak to media members during his vote at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on Monday, June 2, 2025.
Shaw, an ABC News Supreme Court contributor who previously worked in the office of President Barack Obama’s White House advisor, said, “Very plausible explanation, Senator, what you have to consider is [Trump] He is engaged in far more lawless activities than other presidents. right? ”
“This was never used before the 1960s,” Holy said. “And suddenly, the Democratic judge decided that we love the national injunction, and when Biden took office, no, no.”
Shaw cited Mirasohoni, a professor at Stanford Law School. This suggests that the first national injunction was issued in 1913, while others were issued in the 1920s.
“The federal government was doing much less until 100 years ago,” she said. “There’s a lot that’s changed over the last 100 or the last 50 years.”
“So, as long as it’s a Democratic president in office, shouldn’t we have a national injunction?” Holy shot back. “If it’s a Republican president, is this absolutely problematic, guaranteed and required? How can our legal system survive on those principles?”
Shaw believes there is a system that “has no legal constraints on a president is a very dangerous system of law,” but Missouri Republicans argued that it wasn’t something that law professors believed when Biden was president.
“You said it was a tragedy of democratic principles, the concept of judicial equity, the rule of law,” Holy said. “You said the idea that everyone would win foreign shops to get judges that issue national injunctions. A judge who looks like a politician would just look like a politician in his robe. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the results they wanted.
Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carrie Law School, was a district judge v. Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at Capitol Hill.
Trump Administrator’s Judge blocking Trump’s Harvard University Foreign Students
Holy cited Shaw’s stance in the ruling of certain abortion drugs during Biden’s presidency. In April 2023, US District Judge Matthew J. Kakusmalik for the Northern District of Texas issued a national injunction over the Biden Food and Drug Administration’s Mifepristone rules.
Holy said it was unable to provide the rightful principles for issuing a nationwide injunction.
“I think I hate the president,” the senator told Shaw. “I understand that you love all these rulings against him. You and I know that it’s not a principle. You are a lawyer. You are a lawyer. What are the principles that divide when issuing a national injunction, and when the Biden administration was subject to a national injunction, you said they are a run for the principles of democracy.”
“When it’s Biden, it’s okay. It’s Biden. Ah, that’s a tragedy. When it’s in office, it’s no-hold, whatever it does,” the senator added.
Senator Cory Booker, DN.J., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, greets University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw, on June 3, 2025, in Washington, DC (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images), on June 3, 2025, to the unprecedented number of judicial differences against President Donald Trump.
Holy said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues had filed a “very principled injunction” on a national injunction issued against Biden just nine months ago, “what changed in nine months was a 1600 Pennsylvania Street resident.”
“I’ve noticed that my colleague on this side of the aisle makes me hate the individual very much,” Holy said, referring to Trump. “And I understand that you think the ruling he lost is fundamentally healthy.”
“I don’t agree with all of that, but we can put it on one side. The question we’re talking about here is, “Should we be able to tie up non-political parties where there is no judge, a single judge, a district court judge?” And you now say yes,” he said. “Be consistent. I suggest you that if our government system will become political all the time, our government system will not survive.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
Shaw replied, “Democracy is not as simple as the majority rule,” but Holy said, “it’s probably as simple as the majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you’re injunction for a national injunction.
Daniel Wallace is a news and political reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to danielle.wallace@fox.com and to X:@danimwallace.
Source link
