-9999

Floor Speech

Before you spoke, you spoke about the times that we often agree. Just today, you and I--I won't go into the subject matter. But just today, you and I cosponsored a bill together, as an example.

The other thing I would like to say, before I go to my remarks, is that I want to associate myself with your quote from our colleague Senator Cornyn that you don't impeach judges just because of a decision, because we would be impeaching judges all the time. That is my additional comment.

The third thing is to inform you that I hope I can get, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, something moving in this area. I happen to agree with some Democrats, in previous years, that said some judges have gone way beyond what a judge should do on national injunctions, and I hope to find a solution for that. I would hope that you and I maybe could work on that together because I know Democrats have made that same accusation about district court judges in 1 district out of 93 in the United States applying their decision nationally.

So now, I would like to go to my reason for objecting. Today, I come here for the same reason.

I won't stand by and allow my colleagues to imply that ``the rule of law''--those three words--only matters when there is a Republican President.

As I explained a few weeks ago, the Biden administration engaged in 4 years of complete lawlessness. Instead of condemning it, Democrats viciously attacked the legitimacy of the courts for ruling against the Biden administration. The silence that we heard from Democrats about the rule of law during the Biden years is quite deafening.

I won't repeat my last speech, but I will expand on one of my previous objections.

This resolution demands that the President comply with all court orders, but it is completely silent about the role of the Federal courts to adhere to the law themselves. For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we have seen increasingly sweeping, potentially lawless orders coming from any 1 of our 600 district judges out of the 93 districts we have.

Although our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, individual judges have empowered themselves to become nationwide policymakers, as opposed to interpreting law. I consider this very dangerous.

In the last few weeks, individual unelected judges made policy decisions for the whole country. Some examples include: ordering the President to stop deporting foreign terrorists; directing the military to enlist and retain transgender servicemembers; directing who will and will not staff the President's administration--that is really extraordinary, I think--and then, lastly, an example, ordering the immediate expenditure of billions of dollars. One judge even went so far as to order the government to pay out 2 billion taxpayer dollars and to do it within 36 hours.

Much of this would go to organizations not even involved in the case, and the government would never be able to get this money back, even if they ultimately won on appeal.

In the 2 months since President Trump has entered office, his administration has suffered more of these sweeping orders at the hands of district court judges than the Biden administration experienced in 4 years.

I want to emphasize that--more obstacles to carrying out what the President wants to do in 2 months and stopped by the court more than the entire 4 years of the Biden administration.

Has President Trump chosen to ignore this avalanche of irresponsible court orders? Flat-out no. He has appealed these outrageous decisions, just as he promised he would do when he said:

I always abide by the courts and then I'll have to appeal it. . . . The answer is I always abide by the courts.

Appellate courts have responded by striking down many of the unlawful intrusions into Presidential authority, but the core problem remains: The President of the United States shouldn't have to ask permission from more than 600 different district court judges to manage the executive branch that he was elected to lead.

The practice of sweeping, nationwide injunctions, broad restraining orders, and judicial policymaking must end. It is unconstitutional, it is anti-democratic, and it is imprudent. If the Supreme Court won't stop it, then Congress must. And I wish the Supreme Court would get on this and do it right away.

This issue isn't a partisan issue. I want to work with Democrats, as I just said to the Senator from Illinois.

Democrats, work with us to fix this.

In the past, Democrats and Republicans have both criticized nationwide injunctions and the power of individual district judges. My Democratic colleagues have even proposed legislation to rein in some of these abuses.

You don't have to take my word for it. In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan correctly observed:

It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.

In 2024, President Biden's Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argued before the Supreme Court. Now listen to this quote:

A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it. The district court violated that principle by issuing a universal injunction purporting to enjoin the Act itself and forbidding the enforcement of the Act even against non-parties.

So, as I told Senator Durbin, I hope to soon be holding a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to address this matter and even introduce legislation to end these abuses. I hope both my Democratic and Republican colleagues join me in this effort.

For the resolution at hand, I propose an amendment so it reads ``the Constitution of the United States and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all lawful Federal court rulings.'' This simple change of one word--``lawful''--will show that Congress expects both the executive branch and the judicial branch to respect the rule of law and constitutional constraints.

My amendment mirrors what the Chief Justice said in 2024. The Chief Justice rightly raised concerns about the intimidation and the threats leveled at the Court in the wake of the Dobbs decision. He said:

The final threat to judicial independence is defiance of judgments lawfully entered by courts of competent jurisdiction.

He had no problem adding the word ``lawful'' in. We shouldn't have it any other way.

So therefore I ask the Senator, my friend from Illinois, to modify his request such that the Grassley amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Are you asking about the original one?

(Purpose: To improve the resolution)

On page 2, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

(4) Article III of the Constitution of the United States limits Federal courts to deciding specific ``cases'' or ``controversies'';

(5) it is inappropriate for courts of the United States to override legislative or executive action by the elected branches of government because of different policy preferences; and

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I know of no further debate on the nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source