reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that judges are acting as partisan activists and attempting to dictate policy to the President, thereby slowing the administration's agenda. There is a concerted effort by the far left to judge shop and pick judges who will derail the President's agenda. The administration will comply with court orders and continue to fight these battles in court. These judges are usurping the will of the President and undermining the will of the millions of Americans who elected him to implement his policies.

The speaker believes there's a constitutional crisis caused by district court judges setting broad federal policy, which is the president's job. These judges should be settling specific matters, not setting policy. The speaker agrees with Vance and Trump on this issue. The speaker does not want individual federal judges who hate Donald Trump to tie him up for four years. Big policy questions should be decided by the Supreme Court, but in the interim, the executive has to be allowed to govern.

I want to address the dishonest narrative that's been emerging. Many outlets are fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House, but the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. These judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law. They have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past fourteen days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits. This is a concerted effort by Democrat activists and nothing more than the continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump. We will comply with the law in the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump's policies can be enacted.

The speaker states that President Trump stands by his call to impeach Judge Bozeman, despite Chief Justice Roberts' comments. The administration believes a single district court judge cannot assume the powers of the commander in chief, as it requires agreement from five Supreme Court justices to change federal policy. The speaker claims that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The speaker asserts that President Trump respects Justice Roberts but believes the Supreme Court must stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges who are usurping presidential powers and destroying the constitutional system.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nation wide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has stopped the presidency itself. That's what they've done. And, really, it's been it's been an amazing period of time this last hour. There are people elated all over the country. I've seen such such happiness and spirit. Sometimes you don't see that, but this case is very important. I was elected on a historic mandate.

A judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction regarding the defunding of sanctuary cities. The speaker believes it's unbelievable that judges in San Francisco or San Diego would rule this way, stating that the U.S. shouldn't have sanctuary cities. According to the speaker, sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals, protecting them, and should be closed down to ensure a safe country. The speaker says "we have to get rid of sanctuary cities."

Nationwide injunctions allow a single federal judge or a small group to halt Trump administration policies, even with weak legal justification. An injunction issued in one jurisdiction, like Maryland, can halt implementation of a law across the entire country, not just locally. A new parallel court system could be created to specifically handle requests for nationwide injunctions.

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

A senator questions a witness about universal injunctions, which are court orders affecting parties beyond the specific case. The witness admits there's no statutory or Supreme Court basis for them. The senator suggests these injunctions circumvent the need for class action lawsuits. The witness agrees that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, where plaintiffs seek favorable judges to enjoin policies nationwide. The senator states universal injunctions were unknown in English common law and cites that only about 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. The senator suggests universal injunctions have become a weapon against the Trump administration. The witness confirms Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions, and the senator proposes Congress could limit judges' power to impact those outside their courtroom, suggesting class actions as the appropriate mechanism.

A universal injunction is a court order affecting those not party to a case, sometimes called a nationwide injunction. There is no statutory or Supreme Court basis for it. While it shouldn't be possible, district courts issue them to stop federal policy nationwide, protecting nonparties. Class actions are meant to affect parties not in court. The Department of Justice argues for class actions, but plaintiffs often prefer universal injunctions, encouraging forum shopping to find a judge to enjoin a policy nationwide; only one of multiple lawsuits needs to be successful. Universal injunctions were unknown in English common law. About 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions; it says courts decide cases based on the parties involved. Congress could limit federal judges to decisions affecting only plaintiffs and defendants, using class actions for broader impact.

A universal injunction is a court order affecting non-parties nationwide, for which there appears to be no statutory or Supreme Court basis. While it shouldn't be possible, district courts issue them to stop federal policy, protecting all non-parties. The Department of Justice argues for class actions instead, but plaintiffs often prefer universal injunctions, encouraging forum shopping to find a judge to enjoin policy nationwide; only one of multiple lawsuits needs to be successful. Universal injunctions were unknown in English common law. There were approximately 27 in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. Article Three does not mention universal injunctions, stating courts should decide cases based on the parties before them. Congress could limit federal judges to decisions impacting only plaintiffs, defendants, or class actions.

A majority of Americans believe no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. According to the speaker, this is a judicial coup d'etat, with judges issuing nationwide injunctions from the same political background to stop the changes President Trump represents. While some issues should be addressed in Congress, micromanaging the executive branch on national security by single judges is inappropriate. These judges have no standing, knowledge, or awareness of the consequences, and they endanger Americans and the nation by acting as alternative presidents, of which there could be 677, none of whom were elected.

The Trump administration's attorney argues injunctions are a bipartisan problem spanning five presidential administrations. Universal injunctions exceed judicial power granted in Article III, which should only address injury to the complaining party. They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority and create practical problems. Universal injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions and encourage rampant forum shopping. Judges are required to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions. They create confrontations between the life-tenured and representative branches of government and disrupt the Constitution's separation of powers.

A senator accuses Democrat colleagues of hypocrisy regarding the rule of law, citing their past support for a "lawless" and "politically weaponized" Department of Justice. They claim Democrats didn't care about violent protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes, alleging the Attorney General agreed with the protesters to intimidate judges. The senator questions a professor about the roles of voters, elected representatives, and judges in elections and policy decisions. The senator asserts that federal courts do not have the power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case and that "nationwide injunction" is not in the constitution. The senator states that there were zero nationwide injunctions in the first 150 years of the republic, 27 in the 20th century, and 32 between 2001 and 2024. They claim 37 nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone against President Trump. The senator accuses Democrats of "lawfare" by indicting Trump and now seeking out radical judges to shut down policies through forum shopping. They allege a judge ignored US immigration law to keep "murderers and rapists and gang members" in communities, and that nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power.

One key question is whether a federal judge can block a presidential policy nationwide. The administration argues this creates an unfair playing field, forcing the government to "win everywhere" while plaintiffs "can win anywhere." Justice Sotomayor responded skeptically, saying the administration's argument "makes no sense whatsoever," and that it would limit the ability of federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, to issue nationwide relief. She asked what would happen if a president issued an executive order to take away everyone's guns, and whether courts would have to "sit back and wait for individuals to sue one by one." The administration also argues that the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship provision was meant for freed slaves, not immigrants.

"Did you know the judge that released this guy didn't even go to law school? Yeah. Not even a lawyer." "These magistrate judges that are making a decision to release these people without bail? Yeah. They're they're not even lawyers." "They didn't go to law school. They didn't pass the bar." "They just got appointed to be judges." "No training required." "They don't even have to be lawyers, but they can be judges." "They don't have to go to law school. They don't have to pass the bar." "How the fuck is this a thing? How the fuck do we have judges who didn't even study the law?" "But to be the judge, to be the person overseeing these lawyers, to be the ultimate arbiter of the law, you don't have to go to law school. You don't have to pass the bar." "How is this a fucking thing?"

A universal injunction is a court order affecting parties beyond the case, sometimes called a nationwide injunction. There is no statutory or Supreme Court basis for it. While it shouldn't be possible, district courts issue them to stop a federal policy nationwide, protecting nonparties. Class actions are the proper method to affect parties not in court, but the Department of Justice argues that class actions are often inappropriate because plaintiffs can't satisfy rule 23. Universal injunctions encourage forum shopping, district shopping, and strategic lawsuits to find a judge to enjoin a policy nationwide; only one of multiple lawsuits needs to be successful. Universal injunctions were unknown in English common law. Only about 27 were issued in the 20th century, but 86 were issued against President Trump in his first term, and 30 so far in his second. Article Three doesn't mention universal injunctions; it says courts decide cases based on the parties involved. Congress could limit federal judges to decisions affecting only plaintiffs and defendants, using class actions for broader impact.

There's a constitutional crisis happening within our judicial branch. District court judges in liberal districts are overstepping their bounds, blocking my executive authority. These aren't honest arbiters; they're judicial activists. In just two weeks, they've issued at least a dozen injunctions against my administration, often without any real basis. This is a coordinated effort by Democrat activists, a continuation of the weaponization of justice against me. These liberal judges need a reality check. 77 million Americans voted for me, and these injunctions are abuses of the law, attempts to subvert the will of the people. We'll comply with the law and the courts, but we'll fight these radical injunctions through every legal avenue to ensure my policies are enacted.

A New York judge, Engelmayer, issued an order barring all political appointees, including the Secretary of the Treasury, from accessing US Treasury data. This was done without citing any law, precedent, or reason, and the order was ex parte, meaning it couldn't be challenged initially. Only Democrat attorneys general could weigh in. Current Treasury employees retain access, leaving the Secretary with less power than subordinates. While initially a week-long order, Democrat attorneys general aim to make it permanent. I find this action seditious and treasonous—unacceptable interference by state judges and attorneys general in the executive branch's affairs. This is outrageous; those responsible should face jail time.

Nationwide injunctions occur when a district court judge blocks a law or order from being implemented nationwide, despite their jurisdiction typically covering only one state or part of one state. These injunctions were once uncommon, with six issued during George W. Bush's presidency and twelve during Obama's. However, their frequency increased significantly during Donald Trump's first term, with 64 being issued. At the current rate, this number could be surpassed in the first year of a second Trump term.

I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.

A fundamental question is whether a district court judge's jurisdiction, limited to their district, allows them to issue nationwide orders. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this issue. It is argued that they shouldn't have this power. Congress could resolve this, and Republicans, who control Congress, should act. Congress should fix this problem.

But I wanna just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling. It's a giant. It's a giant. Thank you, president Trump. Thank you for fighting for all Americans. Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down president Trump's policies across the entire nation. No longer. Today in the six three opinion, justice Barrett correctly holds that the district court lacks authority to enter nationwide or universal injunctions. These lawless injunctions gave relief to everyone in the world instead of the parties before the court. As the supreme court held today, they turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.

Individual judges have abused the system by issuing nationwide injunctions to stop President Trump's agenda. Statistics show that 67% of all national injunctions issued over the last 100 years have been against Donald J. Trump. 92% of those injunctions were issued by Democrat-appointed judges. This must be stopped.