[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 46 (Thursday, March 14, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2378-S2379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Nationwide Injunctions

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, I would like to 
speak briefly on a practice in our Nation's courts that has confounded 
administrations of both parties with increasing frequency over the past 
decade. It is the issuance of nationwide injunctions.
  Time after time, district judges will respond to a case challenging a 
Federal law by preventing its application not just to the parties 
before them or within their jurisdictions but nationwide.
  During the last administration, Attorneys General Sessions and Barr 
issued policy and litigation guidance on the issue to try and pare it 
back. Senator Cotton introduced a bill to eliminate the practice by 
statute; and Chairman Graham was eager to move the Cotton bill, but 
Senate Democrats were not. In fact, their star witness in support of 
nationwide injunctions is now a Federal judge in the District of 
Columbia.
  Rather than working with Republicans to eliminate a practice that 
gores the oxen of both parties, it turns out our colleagues prefer to 
preserve it just for themselves.
  Now that nationwide injunctions are being used against the Biden 
administration, liberal allies in the academy and in the media have 
started to ``target single judge divisions,'' where they think 
conservative plaintiffs are likely to get favorable ratings from 
sympathetic judges.
  The Democratic leader even wrote to the Judicial Conference demanding 
action against the scourge of judges who don't rule in favor of the 
Biden administration. In other words, he urged the Conference to keep 
the injunctions and just restrict the access to conservative judges.
  It seems the Judicial Conference took the bait. On Tuesday, they 
instructed district courts to assign all cases seeking to invalidate 
State or Federal law randomly across the district in which they were 
brought. This will have no practical effect in the venues favored by 
liberal activists, but Democrats are salivating at the possibility of 
shutting down access to justice in the venues favored by conservatives.
  What will this do in practice? It means the young woman challenging 
Texas abortion laws in Austin can now be forced, for no good reason, to 
have her case heard in El Paso. A veteran defending his Second 
Amendment rights in Youngstown can be sent to Toledo to have his day in 
court. In Kentucky, a coal miner challenging labor regulations in 
London could find his case handed to a judge in Covington--all to 
prevent so-called judge shopping.
  But didn't Chief Justice Roberts say, ``There are not Obama judges or 
Trump judges''? What exactly is the problem that demands such a drastic 
solution?
  Here is what this policy won't do: It won't solve the issues caused 
by nationwide injunctions. If Democrats are right about the practical 
effects of this policy, any remaining incentive they have to work with 
Republicans on this issue will vanish--``Nationwide injunctions for me, 
but not for thee.''
  Needless to say, if Republicans see a Federal judiciary that is using 
its procedural independence to wade into political disputes, any 
incentive we may have to defend the procedural independence will vanish 
as well.

[[Page S2379]]

  This was an unforced error by the Judicial Conference. I hope they 
will reconsider, and I hope district courts throughout the country will 
instead weigh what is best for their jurisdictions, not half-baked 
``guidance'' that just does Washington Democrats' bidding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the submission of S. 3961 
are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.