The legal move that could stop anti-Trump lawsuits in their tracks

The Trump administration is flooded with lawsuits. This is not surprising, but the enormous volume, well over 100, at the time of this writing, and the speed at which rulings against the president have been issued.

The rapid pace of these cases disrupt important legal issues. In particular, many cases, including contracts, backpay and civil servant protection, may not belong to the federal district court at all. These courts are unilateral orders that successfully repeat Trump's agenda by issuing temporary restraining orders and retreat without the opportunity to appeal.

Most of the cases against Trump belong to the district court at all, but they have successfully stopped his presidential operations.

The Department of Justice should explore creative legal strategies to direct these cases from federal courts to the appropriate venues and lead them to the federal claims courts and the Merit System Protection Committee. At the same time, the White House should take steps to ensure that these are fair places of claims against the administration, not partisan courts where the remaining Biden appointees are primarily bided.

Jurisdiction issues

The problem with these cases is that they probably don't belong to the district court at all. Congress has national authority over lower courts – held that contract disputes belong to a specialized court of federal claims.

Similarly, cases involving adverse personnel litigation under the Civil Service Act have been designated by the Merit System Protection Committee. However, many of these cases end up in the district court.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to force district courts to comply with jurisdictional restrictions. But the Trump administration has another weapon in the armory to force the issue faster: Calling the ancient Prohibition warrant.

Reviving the ban warrant

Prohibited warrants originating from the English common law were commonly used to resolve disputes in courts of competent jurisdiction. For example, if a court inappropriately exercises jurisdiction over a church matter, the King's bench could issue a warrant prohibiting it from dissolution of authority.

In the United States, this warrant was initially rare, but the creation of a modern Circuit Court of Appeals has gained wide applicability, allowing the Court of Appeals to act in support of jurisdiction. According to one Court of Appeal, there must be a clear case in which the court violates its jurisdiction without any other available ways to challenge the action in order to call a warrant.

In many of these cases against the administration, the district court simply has no jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff attempts to force USAID to pay a contract, the action falls under the jurisdiction of the CFC, not the federal district court. The same principle applies to personnel actions that should be heard in front of the MSPB rather than in the district court.

If the district court grants a temporary restraining order in either case, the government has practically no way to appeal. Therefore, Trump has the right to seek a warrant of prohibitions to prevent district courts from exceeding jurisdiction if given appropriate appeal therapy. That's exactly why warrants exist.

Replace Biden's appointees

This jurisdictional battle highlights his appointment, another important issue for Trump. If the Department of Justice succeeds in redirecting the contract case to the CFC, they will now land in front of Biden's appointees. Trump has the authority to change that right away, and he should.