- Sen. Josh Hawley demands Congress strip district courts of power to issue nationwide injunctions, calling it judicial overreach against Trump’s immigration policies.
- A federal judge forced planes carrying deported gang members to return to the U.S., sparking outrage over judicial obstruction.
- Hawley introduced a bill to ban nationwide injunctions, limiting courts’ rulings to involved parties or districts.
- Democrats face accusations of hypocrisy for opposing nationwide injunctions when used by Republican-appointed judges.
- The clash highlights a broader battle over immigration enforcement and separation of powers.
In an unprecedented clash between the judiciary and the executive branch, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is demanding Congress strip district courts of their power to issue nationwide injunctions—a move he argues is necessary to curb judicial overreach undermining President Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.
The call comes after a federal judge ordered two planes carrying deported Tren de Aragua gang members—linked to violent crimes including kidnappings and murders—to turn around mid-flight and return to the U.S. Since Trump’s return to office in January, his policies have faced 15 nationwide injunctions, following 64 during his first term—a level of judicial obstruction never before seen in American history.
Speaking on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle, Hawley blasted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s intervention as an abuse of power, arguing that only the Supreme Court should wield nationwide legal authority.
“The key thing to do here, Laura, is to end the ability of these district courts to abuse their judicial authority by issuing these so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley told host Laura Ingraham. “I don’t think they have that authority, properly speaking, under the Constitution, Article III. What they’re doing is they’re purporting to bind parties and individuals who aren’t before them.”
Hawley emphasized that district courts were never intended to act as de facto policymakers. “We only have one Supreme Court that can bind the whole nation. District courts aren’t supposed to be able to do it,” he said, noting the staggering number of injunctions against Trump’s agenda. “It’s incredibly abusive, and Congress ought to end it.”
Congress holds the key
Hawley’s solution lies in legislation he introduced—the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevent Act of 2025—which would ban district courts from issuing sweeping injunctions and limit their rulings to the parties directly involved or their judicial districts. He argues Congress has clear constitutional authority to rein in lower courts, citing Article III’s provision allowing lawmakers to establish and regulate the judiciary.
“Congress has the ability to create [lower courts], to govern them,” Hawley said. “We should say they do not have the power to issue injunctions nationwide, period. End of story, no more abuse.”
The senator also called out Democrats for hypocrisy, pointing to their past criticism of nationwide injunctions when Republican-appointed judges issued them. “They said they wanted to eliminate nationwide injunctions seven months ago. OK. Let’s do it,” he challenged. “Let’s now give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and let’s vote on it.”
A broader battle over immigration and security
The immediate flashpoint is Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to fast-track deportations of Tren de Aragua members, a Venezuelan gang accused of terrorizing communities, including an attempted takeover of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. The administration has also designated the group, along with MS-13 and Mexican cartels, as foreign terrorist organizations.
Yet Democratic-led states and unions have repeatedly sued to block such measures, with judges issuing injunctions that freeze policies nationwide. Hawley and other Republicans argue this judicial bottleneck paralyzes enforcement, endangering public safety.
A defining test for separation of powers
As Hawley’s bill gains traction, the debate underscores a fundamental tension: Should a single district judge hold veto power over national policy? With Trump’s agenda facing relentless legal roadblocks, the answer could reshape the balance of power between branches—and determine whether the executive can fulfill its duty to secure the border. For Hawley, the path forward is clear: “Let’s stop the abuse.”
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.