Establishing a specialized Trump Court would centralize all legal disputes concerning President Trump’s executive orders, terminations, and policy changes, ensuring consistent and expedited adjudication. This dedicated judicial body would streamline the resolution process, reducing the backlog in traditional courts and providing clarity on executive actions. By focusing exclusively on cases related to the current administration directives, the Trump Court aims to enhance judicial efficiency and avoid politically motivated log jams.
Good god NO!! The last thing we know is a rubberstamp court just for a president. We are doing just fine. The current approach ensures multiple courts are involved, perhaps adding something unique to the orocess.
Someone once said “democracy is messy.” Thankfully, true. Dictators use "special courts’. Democracies use constitutional courts. Takes longer, costs more but immensely cleaner.
I’ve been tossing something similar around in my head the last couple of weeks, but hadn’t had time to fully flesh it out into a full submission.
My take on it would be:
Cases against the Government would be filed in the district courts as is typical. If the district court decides to impose a temporary or permanent injunction that is broader than just protecting the plaintiff, it would, within 72 hours, be brought to an Injunction Tribunal to determine if a broad (ie Nationwide) injunction is warranted.
The Injunction Tribunal would consist of 3 judges randomly selected from each of the 12 Circuit Court of Appeals, hearing the case for the injunction en banc (likely via video conference so that the judges would not have to travel). The Tribunal would then, based on the presented facts, decide to:
- Impose a nationwide injunction (this would require a 2/3 majority of the judges on the panel), and allow the lower court to proceed with the case.
- Impose a more limited injunction protecting only the plaintiff, and allow the lower court to proceed with the case.
- Deny an injunction, but allow the lower court to proceed with the case.
- Order the lower court to recuse from the case and a new court be assigned (in the case of a conflict of interest or clear signs of court shopping).
- Dismiss the case for lack of standing.
- Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
With this plan, it limits judicial tyranny since a nationwide injunction would require 24 of the 36 judges to concur with the findings, but only 19 of the 36 for the other 5 options.
Since this is a panel representing all 12 Circuit Court of Appeals, it would be that consensus that justifies a nationwide injunction (where a District court technically should only be able to impose an injunction within their District). The verdict of the Injunction Tribunal could be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, as it has the standing as a verdict of the Court of Appeals.
Again, I know others will have their thoughts, and this is just the start.
1 Like
Very thoughtful!
Every savvy litigant judge shops when they can. It’s not illegal. Anti-Trump forces are currently flooding the courts with opposition and grievances. Some of these suits are legitimate or rightly filed. Everything trial courts rule against Trump is subject to appeal by the Executive Branch all the way to the Supremes. This is also legit, but locks up the courts and our government. We need a fast way to resolve these conflicts.
I know it’s not illegal (in fact when I was writing the post last night, the specific line about judge shopping was a last minute addition before I submitted it - in the first draft I only said conflict of interest)
I think my point about that is that if you look at the cases that are currently in front of judges, the judges each have a history of being “activists” for DNC causes, which leads to the expected outcome of judicial overreach. Since removing a sitting judge is hard (Impeachment), this option of removing the case from a known activist judge gives both the plaintiff and the defendant a fighting chance of a fair trial.
If you look at each of the cases that are currently in those activist judges courts, they all have one thing in common, seek an injunction to stop the executive branch.
If the activist judges knew that in 72 hours a panel of 36 randomly selected judges from all over the country would review and could possibly overturn the injunction (or worse off, toss the entire case), do you think they would push an injunction beyond a narrow scope?
Ultimately, the fix to nationwide injunctions needs to come from the Supreme Court, but barring that from happening, the Injunction Tribunal will reign in judges that seek to “make a name for themselves” by reaching far beyond the district court’s immediate jurisdiction.
The Injunction Tribunal also fast tracks appeals (since the Tribunal is a subset of the Circuit Courts of Appeals), and any decision by them could be directly appealed to the Supreme Court by either party.
So that’s why I included the 72 hour rule, if a judge slaps an overreaching injunction on Monday, there should be a Tribunal reviewing it by Thursday. While I didn’t include it in the previous post, I was considering that the Tribunal should, barring extraordinary circumstances, provide a summary judgement (as in “we the members of the tribunal rule in this way, with further analysis and discussion forthcoming”) within 96 hours, although it may take longer than that to write the findings of fact. That means the whole process (from District Court ruling to Tribunal summary judgement) would be one week.
In light of the current cases, if many of them faced the Tribunal, I suspect that most of them would be tossed for standing or jurisdiction. Getting the veil of uncertainty removed in less than a week would do wonders for clearing the DNC created logjam. Sure the DNC and their friends could appeal to the Supreme Court, but it would allow the Executive Branch to proceed as planned with their Constitutionally authorized duties without a judge immediately standing in their way.
Again, my proposal above was really just a bunch of random thoughts, and this was the first time I actually started to bring them together into a cohesive plan. I don’t consider it perfect by any means, but it could be the beginnings of a plan to remove the bottleneck of these cases.
1 Like