The legal move that could stop anti-Trump lawsuits in their tracks



The Trump administration has been inundated with lawsuits. While this is hardly surprising, the sheer volume — well over 100 as of this writing — and the speed at which unfavorable rulings have been issued against the president are remarkable.

The rapid pace of these cases has muddled key legal issues. Notably, many cases involving contracts, back pay, and civil service protections likely do not belong in federal district court at all. These courts have, in turn, successfully backlogged Trump’s agenda by issuing temporary restraining orders — a unilateral command to back down without any opportunity to appeal.

Most of the lawsuits against Trump don’t belong in the district courts at all — yet they are successfully halting his presidential operations.

The Department of Justice should explore creative legal strategies to steer these cases away from federal courts toward the appropriate venues: the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. At the same time, the White House should take steps to ensure that these are fair venues for claims against the administration rather than partisan courts presided over by residual Biden appointees.

A jurisdiction problem

The trouble with these cases is that they probably don’t belong in district court at all. Congress — which has plenary power over the lower courts — has determined that contract disputes belong in the specialty Court of Federal Claims.

Similarly, cases involving adverse personnel actions under civil service laws are designated for the Merit Systems Protection Board. Yet many of these cases end up in the district courts.

The Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to force district courts to abide by their jurisdictional limits. However, the Trump administration has another weapon in its arsenal to force the issue sooner: invoking the ancient writ of prohibition.

Revive the writ of prohibition

The writ of prohibition, originating in English common law, was popularly used to resolve jurisdictional court disputes. If a court improperly exercised jurisdiction over an ecclesiastical matter, for instance, the King’s Bench could issue a writ of prohibition to divest it of authority.

In the United States, this writ was initially rare but gained broader applicability with the creation of modern circuit courts of appeal, allowing appellate courts to act in aid of their jurisdiction. According to one appellate court, to invoke the writ, there needs to be a clear instance of a court violating its jurisdiction without any other available way to challenge its actions — precisely the situation Trump faces.

In many of these lawsuits against the administration, the district court simply lacks jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff seeks to force USAID to pay out a contract, that case would fall under the jurisdiction of the CFC, not a federal district court. The same principle applies to personnel actions, which should be heard before the MSPB rather than in district courts.

If the district court grants a temporary restraining order in both cases, the government effectively has no way to appeal. Trump, therefore, has a right to seek a writ of prohibition to prevent district courts from exceeding their jurisdiction when given no adequate appellate remedy. That’s exactly why the writ exists.

Replace Biden appointees

This jurisdictional battle highlights another critical issue for Trump: his appointments. If the Department of Justice succeeds in redirecting contract cases to the CFC, they would currently land before a Biden appointee. Trump has the authority to change that immediately, and he should.

The situation at the MSPB is more complex. Trump previously dismissed its chairman, who subsequently sued him. However, a vacancy remains on the board. Trump should move quickly to fill it, ensuring the MSPB is well positioned to handle the influx of personnel claims.

“Government by temporary restraining order” will persist until a higher court intervenes. The writ of prohibition is an underused but powerful legal remedy that the Justice Department should consider pursuing.

Meanwhile, Trump must ensure that if cases are rerouted to the CFC and MSPB, those bodies are not controlled by Democrats when they don’t need to be. The president has the power to make the CFC and MSPB great again — and he should use it.

Did Fani Willis Indict The ‘Fulton 19’ Defendants Without Proper Jurisdiction?

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-01-at-4.35.38 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Screenshot-2024-05-01-at-4.35.38%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]If a court rules that she did, her entire case crumbles and would leave her and Fulton County vulnerable to a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.

Strong Voter ID Laws Confirm Not Just Who You Are But Where You Live

Voter ID can and should be used to prove we live where we say we live, as that location determines our 'jurisdiction.'

Group of Democrats wants to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over a pro-choice bill and more



A group of House Democrats has joined together in a letter urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to support an effort to block the Supreme Court from scrutinizing the constitutionality of the Women's Health Protection Act, a piece of pro-choice legislation. They want to block the high court from scrutinizing their plans on other issues as well.

"We write to urge your support for restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisidiction in the areas of abortion, marriage equality, non-procreative intimacy, and contraception," the liberal lawmakers wrote. "In doing so, we can ensure that, as Congress takes legislative action to codify each of these fundamental rights, a radical, restless, and newly constituted majority on the Court cannot further undermine the protections we would enact."

\u201cCongress is granted the authority to remove the Supreme Court\u2019s jurisdiction under Article III. To protect marriage equality, contraception, and more, we need to limit the power of the far-right Court that\u2019s already overturned Roe v. Wade.\u201d
— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) 1657833992

Leftists have been up in arms about about the Supreme Court decision issued last month that enabled states to ban abortions. Liberals were also disturbed by Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence in which he suggested that the high court should eventually strike down other decisions including the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage ruling.

Thomas wrote that "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." He also wrote that, "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

In their letter, the left-wing lawmakers claimed that Congress can restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over legislation.

"The solution is to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutionality or legality of the WHPA, which can be done in the next version of the WHPA that we pass this term," the letter says. "Alongside the WHPA, similar provisions must be included in our bills that seek to codify Americans' fundamental rights to marriage equality, non-procreative intimacy, and contraception."

"As we Democrats plan for further legislative action to protect and enshrine abortion rights, as well as the three other fundamental rights called into question in Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs, we urge the exercise of Congress' constitutional powers under Article III to include language that removes the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over such legislation. Congress can instead assign exclusive appellate jurisdiction to another federal court, such as the D.C. Circuit."

The letter is signed by Democratic Reps. Mondaire Jones of New York, Marie Newman of Illinois, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Jamaal Bowman of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Cori Bush of Missouri, Mark Takano of California, and Kaiali'i Kahele of Hawaii.