Last Thursday, Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, testified before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the administration of U.S. courts, federal rules of evidence, civil and appellate procedures, judicial ethics, patent and trademark laws, information technology, and other matters referred by the Chairman.
Von Spakovsky is an expert on civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform.
For years, he’s been studying how plaintiffs’ attorneys and activists attempt to manipulate courts for their own ends at the expense of the public.
Thanks to your support, he had the opportunity to address the role and impact of nationwide injunctions which cut this process of deliberation short by allowing single lower courts to make laws and set precedents for the rest of the country.
Our founding fathers would say that federal courts lower than the Supreme Court shouldn’t be able to make nationwide laws; one circuit’s precedent shouldn’t bind another’s.
This is because complicated legal questions are better answered when they have the opportunity to be viewed by a variety of judges with a variety of perspectives.
A lengthy process of deliberation is essential to preserving sound reason and logic in our legal system.
In his testimony, von Spakovsky said:
When federal district courts issue nationwide injunctions, they are invading jurisdiction and authority of other federal courts and other appellate circuits.
Your support helps advocate for a return to these constitutional principles.
Have the powers of federal district courts gone too far?