Statement for the Record by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Joint Subcommittee Hearing titled “The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump”
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am pleased that two of its Subcommittees are holding a hearing on the pressing issue of judicial overreach and the separation of powers. One of the most dangerous practices of judicial activism that we’ve seen deployed against the executive branch recently is that of universal injunctions.
I’ve been vocal in my opposition to universal injunctions. I view this issue as bipartisan, and I’ve spoken about it on the Senate floor multiple times. I’ve also spoken and written publicly about it in the news and on social media more than a dozen times now.
District judges exceed their Constitutional authority when they issue universal injunctions. Article III limits judicial power to Cases and Controversies. That means that judges are supposed to resolve disputes between the parties in front of them – not set nationwide policy. Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law – not create it. Our system of checks-and-balances demands that we respect this constitutional limit.
The American People set the direction of national policy through elections. And the entire reason that the third branch of government is insulated from the electoral process is because judges are supposed to stay out of politics.
But over the last decade, we’ve seen district judges deviate from their Constitutional swim-lane and use universal injunctions to substitute their judgment for the American voters’. This problem is getting worse by the day. No matter how many of the hundreds of federal judges uphold a President’s policies, a single district judge – just one – can overrule the rest by issuing a universal injunction. This must stop now.
I’ve undertaken a number of efforts to address the growing problem of universal injunctions. In April, I led a hearing in the Judiciary Committee to consider legislative solutions. I’ve also introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act with 29 of my colleagues. As Professor Bray described it at the hearing: “This bill will take the universal injunction and bury it six feet under. No evasions, no circumventions, no substitutes. No outs for Republicans, no outs for Democrats.”
My bill is the only one that takes a holistic approach to the problem. It puts an end to the non-party relief known as universal injunctions and closes other statutory loopholes. I hope to gather bipartisan support for my bill. After all, Democrats, Republicans, law professors and even Supreme Court Justices have complained about the harm caused by universal injunctions.
In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan correctly observed: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.”
I agree with Justice Kagan. But I also recognize that political pressures have tempered some Democrats’ desire to address this bipartisan problem. So, in the meantime, I’m drafting legislation that can pass through budget reconciliation to address this problem. Although these are not complete solutions like my Judicial Relief Clarification Act, they will mitigate the problem.
We need funding for the Justice Department to hire attorneys and challenge universal injunctions. We need reporting requirements for the courts to track universal injunctions and to ensure that courts follow the law and require bonds to protect taxpayers from unlawful injunctions. And we need judicial training programs regarding the absence of Constitutional authority for universal injunctions and the burdens they impose.
These legislative efforts return power to the American People. They respect the separation of powers. And they recognize that the power to set policies rests with voters.
I’ve been leading the fight to end universal injunctions, and I’ll continue doing so. I welcome collaboration with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this important project.
-30-