The imperial judiciary strikes again
A Massachusetts district judge has stopped Congress’ defunding of Planned Parenthood, at least for the next two weeks:
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani placed a temporary restraining order on the provision of President Donald Trump’s bill that defunds Planned Parenthood.
It expires in 14 days.
The abortion mill sued the Trump administration because the “big, beautiful bill” banned it from receiving Medicaid payments.
The organization claimed Trump’s administration targeted it “in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds.”
How can the judge do that, in light of the recent SCOTUS limits on nationwide injunctions by district courts? I’m scratching my head on that, but perhaps because it’s not technically an injunction but instead a restraining order, which has basically the same effect? And in addition, this was a piece of duly-passed Congressional legislation, not a mere executive order.
So, on what basis did Judge Talwani make the decision? I searched around, looking at commentary that didn’t explain that, and finally I went to the judge’s order itself. No reason whatsoever is given. I guess Judge Talwani felt she didn’t have to do so.
As you might expect, Judge Talwani has the usual liberal/left bona fides. Radcliffe undergrad, Berkeley law school, Obama appointee. No doubt a heroine to many, but not to me.
How can a judge do that? Because she can. Who is going to stop her? Eventually, SCOTUS will overturn her with a sharp written rebuke…at some point. So what? She will remain a heroine to liberals. No consequences.
Comprehensive judicial reform should be a priority for a Vance administration, assuming 2028 produces a strong GOP victory. All district court injunctions on Presidential and Congressional actions should be automatically stayed, pending appellate review
The nationwide injunction issue wasn’t at play here. It was Planned Parenthood asking for relief, and they got it (for now). That is in point 1 of the order. It applies only to Planned Parenthood and affiliates. The nationwide injunctions where putting restrictions related to people who were not party to the case without the benefit of a certified class.
This decision is bunk and will be overturned in short order. It contradicts a different Supreme Court case directly on point about defunding Planned Parenthood by the States and it was decided without even giving the Government a chance to respond (entirely improperly as there was no emergency rush), and it relies on a “bill of attainer” argument (if you say the Judge even bothered to care what the argument was) which has never been applied to funding decisions.
WSJ editorial this morning on this (not the judicial part) that I imagine many here will enjoy.
Planned Parenthood Gets Cut Off.
https://archive.md/n1lZW
So Indira Talwani, appointed by Barack Hussein Obama is the leftard heroine of the day. If one was not informed of the citizenship of these people, one might think one was reading about events in some third world craphole country. Unfortunately, it would appear that we are headed in that direction. Import the third world; become the third world.
The escalating misbehavior of the judiciary can be traced to a particular point of origin – 1937 – and the cavalcade of crapsters who fostered it does not include many hispanics or Orientals or East Indians. It does include Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun &c.
Once upon a time I thought the law, lawyers and judges were ruled, within limits, by reason.
_________________________________
But I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now.
–Bob Dylan, “My Back Pages” (1964)
_________________________________
Now it seems like modern art — whatever you can get away with and more power to you.
Exactly.
>>but perhaps because it’s not technically an injunction but instead a restraining order
No, that would not be the reason. Any nationwide effect of a TRO would be that much worse, in that the defendant has not yet had a chance to respond.
Anyone here ever have the pleasure of watching Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) question a Leftist activist judicial nominee? It’s one of my guilty pleasures.
I’d love to see him take a run at this lady.
When a law is crafted and passes its votes by both Congressional bodies, and is then signed into law by the POTUS, how is a district judge empowered to stop its implementation? And worse, without showing cause? There has to be more to this story.
If not, then there has to be a system of penalties put into place that has the teeth to strip a judge of their position on the basis of outrageous conduct, abuse of authority, misuse of power; or as someone else mentioned, an automatic appellate review halting the injunction before being accepted as valid.
Watt:
My point was not whether a TRO would be better or worse than an injunction; it was whether or not the recent SCOTUS decision, which I recall as being about an injunction, would be controlling. Also, if I’m not mistaken, in the original injunction in the case SCOTUS later ruled on, the government was given no time to present its case.
I believe the answer to this one (Jake) is—simply—“Massachusetts”.…
(BTW, what on earth is “complexifies” doing in the WSJ???)
Ackler makes the point…leftist activist judges are not afraid of being overturned because there is no consequential impact on them. “SCOTUS overruled me? Ho Hum. Let’s try this instead next time.”
Judicial reform should include some form of consequence for this sort of Constitutional malfeasance.
A temporary restraining order is merely to freeze the status quo until a hearing on the merits can be held to which the party subject to the TRO (often issued ex parte) has notice and in which that party has an opportunity to be heard. Under both federal and state rules of civil procedure, it dissolves automatically after a set period of time, usually 10 or 14 days. A TRO is nothing unusual. A preliminary injunction is a much bigger problem because that comes after such a hearing in which a likelihood to win on the merits has been shown. But that has not been issued here. Yet. A TRO is fairly common and not difficult to get and was fully expected in this case, so just relax. This is not a catastrophe or a judge overreaching.
— Aggie
There is. It’s called impeachment, and it’s very hard.
In practical terms, the real limit on the powers of the three branches is what the other two branches will permit them to do, with public tolerance as the backstop in two levels: 1. elections and 2. the threat of violence, if all else fails.
The Presidency, Congress, and the Judiciary have pulled back and forth against each other, gaining and losing powers as they do, since the country was founded.
Yes, impeachment seems impossible in these times.
If we succeed in keeping the House & Senate in 2026, judicial reform could be a great agenda bullet.
Long overdue, IMO.
Why wait until 2028?
I’d like to see a system put in place where federal judges get penalized for each failed ruling (ie, an overturned ruling), and lose their job after some number.
I know that comes with problems, but … just a seed idea, to start.*
What we have now is a particularly nasty “loophole” allowing political hijacking by domestic enemies.
The loophole being: life appointments with effectively no ongoing proof of merit required.
..
* I realize this wouldn’t stop their knee-jerk TRO’s, though.
Needs work.
If you went to Harvard, you can do whatever you want, get fully supported by the “good” people, and get away with it. It’s that simple.
One difference I heard was that this ruling only involves the people party to the case. Planned Parenthood vs any other abortion provider whereas the nationwide injunctions said the EO or law could not be enforced against anyone anywhere.
Re: More imperial judiciary
__________________________
Judge Hannah Dugan, 65, was arrested in April and charged in a two-count federal indictment alleging that she knowingly concealed a person sought for arrest by immigration authorities and for obstruction of official Department of Homeland Security removal proceedings.
Lawyers for Dugan, in part citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in President Donald Trump’s immunity case, have argued she has judicial immunity for official acts and that her prosecution is unconstitutional.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/recommendation-magistrate-judge-case-milwaukee-judge-hannah-dugan/story?id=123556668
__________________________
What can’t a judge do?
Dugan was not acting in her official capacity so no immunity. Acting in her official capacity would have entailed some type of judicial order.