WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is pushing to limit judges’ ability to overturn presidential orders, arguing that President Donald Trump’s agenda should not be hampered by individual judges issuing injunctions in specific areas of the country.
On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily halted a Trump administration order prohibiting transgender troops from serving in the US military, ruling that the order is likely motivated by prejudice and “its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
Several Republican lawmakers objected to the order, arguing that judges should not be able to block presidential executive orders.
“These injunctions should only be issued by a three-judge district court,” Lee wrote in a post on X. “A single judge shouldn’t have the power to overturn presidential policy decisions.”
Several of Trump’s executive orders have been challenged in court, with approximately 46 of them temporarily halted until they can be reviewed, according to The New York Times. In many of these cases, the administration has already requested that higher courts intervene, and some may even reach the Supreme Court in the coming months.
Lee has repeatedly criticized judges’ ability to stall Trump’s agenda, telling the Deseret News last month that he is drafting legislation that would require temporary injunctions to be issued by a three-judge district court, with the option of a “direct appeal” to the Supreme Court.
Injunctions to halt Trump’s executive orders have become a contentious issue in Republican circles, raising legal questions about federal judges’ authority over the executive branch when the president issues orders.
That question became more prominent last weekend, when Trump used wartime authority to deport nearly 240 alleged Latin American gang members to a massive prison in El Salvador.
A federal judge’s unsuccessful attempt to block the administration’s actions prompted White House officials and prominent conservative figures to criticize the court as a barrier to Trump’s deportation agenda.
“Does this seem like the kind of thing a single federal judge should be able to do?” Lee wrote a post to X.
“This isn’t funny,” he commented in another post.
Lee cited a provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stating that 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.”
Lee argued that the judge in that case did not require the posting of such a bond.
Others in Trump’s inner circle have made similar arguments, calling for limits on judicial authority to overturn the president’s decisions.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to carry out a military operation, that would be illegal. “If a judge tried to tell the attorney general how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal,” Vice President JD Vance wrote on X in February. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
Trump has since called for the impeachment of several judges, including Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to halt the deportation flights until more information was provided.
Boasberg’s order sought to redirect flights carrying deportees back to the United States, which the Trump administration reportedly chose to ignore because the planes were already over international waters when the order was issued.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts pushed back against Trump’s calls to impeach Boasberg or any other judge, writing in a rare statement on Tuesday that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The White House responded, stating that, while Trump has “great respect” for Roberts, the president believes the Supreme Court should “rein in these activist judges.”
“These partisan activists are undermining the judicial branch by doing so,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated to reporters on Wednesday. “We have equal branches of government for a reason. And the president feels strongly about it.”