Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
- Sen. Mike Lee seeks to limit judges' power to block presidential orders.
- Lee proposes requiring three-judge panels for injunctions against executive orders.
- Trump and allies criticize judicial blocks, calling for limits on judges' authority.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is pushing to restrict the ability of judges to overrule presidential orders, arguing President Donald Trump's agenda should not be thwarted by single judges issuing injunctions in specific areas of the country.
A federal judge issued a decision on Tuesday to temporarily halt a Trump administration order barring transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military, ruling that the order is likely driven by prejudice and "its conclusions bear no relation to fact." The order prompted pushback from several GOP lawmakers who said judges should not have the power to block presidential executive orders.
"These injunctions should be issued only by a three-judge district court," Lee said in a post on the social media platform X. "A single judge shouldn't have the power to overturn presidential policy decisions."
Several of Trump's executive orders so far have been met with a flurry of legal challenges, with roughly 46 of those being temporarily halted by courts until they can be reviewed, according to the New York Times. In many of those cases, the administration has already asked higher courts to intervene — and some may even reach the Supreme Court in coming months.
Lee has repeatedly criticized the ability of judges to stall Trump's agenda, telling the Deseret News last month he is drafting legislation that would require temporary injunctions to be issued by a three-judge district court with the possibility of a "direct appeal" to the Supreme Court.
Injunctions to pause Trump's executive orders have become a contentious topic among GOP circles, raising legal questions about what powers federal judges have over the executive branch when the president issues orders.
That question became more prominent last weekend after Trump used wartime authority to deport nearly 240 alleged Latin American gang members to a mega-prison in El Salvador. A federal judge unsuccessfully sought to block the administration's actions, leading White House officials and prominent conservative figures to criticize the court as an obstacle to Trump's deportation agenda.
"Does this seem like the kind of thing a single federal judge should be able to do?" Lee wrote in a post to X.
"This isn't funny," he said in another post.
Lee later cited a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that states judges may "issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order" if the requesting party posts a bond covering "the costs … sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
The judge in that case, Lee argued, didn't require such a bond to be posted.
A number of others in Trump's close circles have provided similar arguments, calling to limit judicial authority to block the president's decisions.
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal," Vice President JD Vance said in a post on X in February. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
Trump himself has since called for the impeachment of some judges, particularly Judge James Boasberg, who sought to block the deportation flights until more information was provided. Boasberg's order sought to redirect flights carrying deportees back to the United States, an order the Trump administration reportedly chose to ignore because the planes were already over international water at the time the order was given.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts pushed back against Trump's suggestions that Boasberg or any other judge should be impeached, writing in a rare statement on Tuesday that "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
The White House shot back, acknowledging that while Trump has "great respect" for Roberts, the president believes the Supreme Court must "rein in these activist judges."
"These partisan activists are undermining the judicial branch by doing so," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday. "We have coequal branches of government for a reason. And the president feels very strongly about that."
