Des Moines Sun

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa has responded to the Washington Post Editorial Board regarding their support for universal injunctions. In his Letter to the Editor, Grassley highlighted what he considers the unconstitutional nature of such injunctions.

Grassley referenced a May 29 editorial titled "In defense of nationwide injunctions," where the board argued that universal injunctions are a necessary check on presidential power despite lacking historical precedent and constitutional basis.

"But allowing district judges to exert bloated authority beyond the cases and controversies before them only creates further imbalance among the branches of government," Grassley wrote. He urged consideration of Article III of the Constitution, which limits courts to deciding "cases" or "controversies." Grassley noted that in America's first 150 years, there was no documented use of universal injunctions according to scholars.

He emphasized that setting policy is not within the judiciary's responsibility, as this power belongs to elected leaders. Grassley pointed out Congress's failure over decades to write specific legislation, leaving room for varied interpretations. However, he asserted that this does not give district judges a pass to overstep constitutional boundaries.

"The continued use of universal injunctions does far more harm than good to our nation’s system of checks and balances," Grassley stated. He mentioned that such injunctions put pressure on the Supreme Court by frequently forcing it into emergency appeals.

Grassley's proposed bill aims to eliminate universal injunctions by making temporary restraining orders immediately appealable, encouraging appropriate appellate action. He also noted that class-action lawsuits are already a mechanism provided by Congress for cases needing widespread judicial relief.

"I hope the Supreme Court steps in quickly to address injunctions," Grassley expressed while pledging to advance his legislative solutions. He called on Democratic colleagues who have criticized universal injunctions in past cases but shelved opposition since President Donald Trump's return.

"The constitutional dangers posed by universal injunctions haven’t changed over the past year; the only thing that has is the White House’s current occupant," he concluded, urging politics not overcome principle in addressing this bipartisan issue.

###