This week, for a second time, a federal district judge – this time in Hawaii – issued an injunction against President Trump’s executive order restricting immigration from several specific countries.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson, in the case of state of Hawaii and Ismail Elshikh v. Donald J. Trump, had the temerity to order that “Enforcement of these provisions in all places, including the United States, at all United States borders and ports of entry, and in the issuance of visas is prohibited, pending further orders from this court.”
In other words, this judge in the district of Hawaii issued a restraining order that supposedly has nationwide enforceability.
The only problem is: He has no authority to do so.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes the judiciary and defines its powers, authority and limitations. Section 2, Paragraph 2 clearly states: “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”
What that means is that, barring a constitutional amendment, any case in which a state is a party must be heard by the Supreme Court, the only court with the authority and jurisdiction to hear such cases.
Since one of the plaintiffs in the case at issue is the state of Hawaii, District Judge Watson had no jurisdiction, nor authority, to even hear the case.
The same holds true for the several other District Courts that have heard and/or issued rulings on cases of like kind.
That paragraph of the Constitution goes on to state: “In all the other cases before mentioned (in Paragraph 1), the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.”
Under that authority Congress went on to enact the Judiciary Acts of 1789, 1801, 1865, and 1925. These various Acts established the federal judicial system we have today, consisting of nine Supreme Court Justices, the various Circuit Courts of Appeal, the various District Courts, and their various jurisdictions, responsibilities and powers.
Part of that structuring defined court power to establish that the only court with national jurisdiction is the Supreme Court. For example, any ruling handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court only has enforcement power within the geographical boundaries of that Circuit, which are the nine Western states, including California.
That’s why it’s not unusual to see different Circuits hand down conflicting rulings on the same issue, with the Supreme Court then stepping in to address and resolve the conflict by issuing a determinate ruling with national authority, thereby assuring a consistent application and rule of law across the nation.
The geographical, jurisdictional and enforcement power of a District Court is even smaller, as it’s a subset of the Circuit Court.
So, just as the authority of a ruling by a Circuit Court is constrained by its geographical boundaries, so is the authority of a District Court’s ruling constrained to its own district.
From this it’s easy to see that, in addition to hearing a case over which he had no jurisdiction, District Court Judge Watson issued a ruling and restraining order that he attempts to apply outside the geographical borders of his own limited authority.
This is beyond unacceptable; it’s a repugnant attempt to usurp and arrogate power.
Were I Trump I’d instruct the State Department and other involved agencies to ignore these illegal rulings by this, and other, district judges who have far overstepped their legal authority.
If these tin pot local judges want to set up a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive branches, then let’s bring it on.
Thomas Jefferson expressed his concern that the federal judiciary was potentially “the most dangerous branch” of government because, once seated, judges were installed for life and not accountable to the electorate.
Unfortunately, particularly in recent decades, we’ve been seeing those fears realized as arrogant activist judges have taken to regularly exceeding their authority to facilitate their own political agendas, as facilitated by the cynical practice of “judge shopping” by litigants eager to promote and achieve their own political ends, goals they generally can’t achieve through the regular political process.
This must come to a halt, even if that has to be done through a constitutional confrontation.
Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.
