More than 30 Ohio House Republicans have signed onto a letter with legislators in other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take action against federal district courts, claiming many are engaging in judicial overreach. That’s about a third of the Ohio House.
Rep. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) is one of the lawmakers who has signed onto a letter asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in the ability of district courts to issue injunctions that are inconsistent and tie up programs and funding across all jurisdictions.
“When rogue judicial actions like this disrupt the process of federal funding that states rely on with their federal partnerships, how are we supposed to govern effectively?” Matthews asked.
Mathews said when one district court upholds a law or executive order while another issues a nationwide injunction to enjoin it, the injunction prevails, nullifying the law or policy across all jurisdictions. He cited challenges to President Trump’s travel ban as an example.
“When you have district judges step in to do what could be seen as partisan, whether that’s on the left or the right, that weakens trust in the judiciary when they get outside of their lane in that way,” Mathews said.
Mathews said the high court itself, in a recent ruling (Trump v. CASA) acknowledged the universal injunctions likely exceed the authority Congress has given to federal courts.
But one Ohio law professor disagrees.
“The system is set up to deal with inconsistent decisions by lower courts," said Jonathan L. Entin, the David L. Brennan Professor Emeritus of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University.
Entin said the U.S. Supreme Court already has the power to quickly take up lower court cases that have competing outcomes. He said the court should do that. Entin said there is no need for the high court to make changes affecting the power of lower courts to issue injunctions. In fact, he said doing so could make matters worse by taking away voices from citizens who look to courts for solutions to problems that cannot be resolved elsewhere.
“The point is we have courts to try to figure out those sorts of things and basically this proposal is to kneecap the courts and make it impossible for them to do their job,” Entin said.
Entin said there’s no legal basis for asking the court to limit the ability of lower courts to issue injunctions.
In addition to the Ohio lawmakers who have signed onto this letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mathews said one or two lawmakers from Wyoming, Kentucky, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire have also signed on. He said the letter is just now being circulated, so he expects more states and lawmakers will sign onto the letter in the coming days, weeks, or months.
