Sen. Josh Hawley Discusses National Injunctions at Hearing

During a Congress hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) represented himself as a law professor while discussing a nationwide injunction placed against the Trump administration by a district court judge.

Hawley pointed out that the use of national injunctions has become more prominent in recent years, especially with the “Democrat judges” favoring them. He mentioned that this practice didn’t really exist before the 1960s, saying, “All of a sudden, Democrat judges loved the national injunction, and when Biden entered the office, no, no, no.” This seems to hint at a kind of inconsistency in how these judicial tools are applied depending on who is in office.

Shaw, who is noted for his contributions to ABC News regarding the Supreme Court, added that judges appointed by Republicans have also issued injunctions. He suggested that the 1960s is where many scholars trace the beginning of this trend. Interestingly, one professor who worked in the Obama White House pointed out that someone named Mirasohoni has argued that the first example of a universal injunction dates back to 1913.

Shaw elaborated, mentioning, “The federal government was doing much less until 100 years ago. There’s a lot that’s changed over the last 100 or the last 50 years.” This highlights a significant shift in governmental power and judicial reach over time.

During the hearing, Hawley expressed the belief that national injunctions should only be applied when a Democratic president is in office, implying that there are systemic issues when it comes to the use of these judicial measures under different administrations. He remarked, “If it’s a Republican president, this is absolutely problematic, guaranteed and sought.”

Throughout Trump’s second term, multiple judges had opposed the administration’s initiatives, including large-scale deportations and cuts to federal funding.

Other Republican senators at the hearing voiced their discontent with recent judicial rulings. Earlier this year, GOP lawmakers proposed measures aimed at limiting the use of national injunctions, arguing that such practices often lead to unnecessary excesses. In contrast, Democrats maintain that judges are merely fulfilling their responsibilities.

Shaw responded, emphasizing, “I think a system that has no restrictions on the president is a very dangerous system.”

A point of contention emerged where Shaw noted that during Biden’s presidency, some feared that any legal challenge would come from a “foreign shop” judge—essentially hinting at the politicization of judicial decisions. This raises questions about the integrity of the legal system and the motivations behind certain judicial outcomes.