Graham Commends Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Policies
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed his support for a recent Supreme Court decision that limits the ability of individual judges to block national presidential policies.
During a discussion on ABC News “This Week,” Graham acknowledged that he sought to choose a judge sympathetic to a lawsuit aimed at challenging the administration’s actions, but he ultimately stated that this practice should be reconsidered.
“A single federal district judge could impose a ban on national policies. [Supreme Court Justice] Amy Coney Barrett mentioned that there are boundaries to what federal judges can fairly do,” Graham explained.
He also brought up that Republicans had employed similar tactics during the Obama era. “We went to Texas and managed to get a U.S. District Court judge to temporarily ban Obamacare,” he remarked.
However, Graham added that this approach isn’t the right way to craft policy. “This ruling prevents one judge from halting a national program,” he said. “It goes beyond what a U.S. District Court judge is meant to do. There still needs to be judicial review, but it has to go up the chain.”
He emphasized that a single judge shouldn’t have the power to undermine a national program, which he believes is positive since it prevents “judge shopping.”
When asked about instances where the GOP has engaged in “shopping” for judges to obstruct federal policies they oppose, he candidly responded, “Absolutely. The end of that practice needs to happen.”
“If we’re aiming to stop policies for the benefit of the nation, we require a system that operates at a more elevated level than those judges on either side,” he added.
The recent Supreme Court ruling came after President Trump’s executive order sought to impose restrictions on birthright citizenship in specific regions. The High Court determined that three federal district judges had overstepped by issuing a national injunction against Trump’s directive, which strengthened the tools plaintiffs could use to challenge the president’s agenda in various cases.
“These injunctions, referred to as ‘universal injunctions,’ appear to surpass the fair powers that Congress has allocated to federal courts,” Barrett articulated for the six judges appointed by Republicans on the court.
