April 8, 2025 • 26 mins
Newt discusses his recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on “Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts.” He is joined by Congressman Russell Fry (SC-7th), who shares his insights from the hearing and discusses legislative efforts, such as the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” aimed at curbing the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. They discuss the increasing trend of nationwide injunctions issued by district judges, particularly during the Trump administration, and the implications of such actions on the balance of power among the branches of government. Their conversation also touches on the broader political climate, the role of the judiciary, and the importance of maintaining the separation of powers.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
On this episode of The Newtsworld. On Tuesday, I testified
in front of the House Judiciary Committee for their hearing
on judicial overreach and constitutional limits in the federal courts,
and I wanted to talk about the committee hearing and
Congressman Daryl A's proposed bill, the No Rogue Rulings Act,
which would limit the power of district judges to impose
nationwide injunctions like the one from Judge James Boseberg that
(00:29):
barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act
to deport Venezuela and illegal immigrants. I'm really pleased to
welcome my guest, who was also with us and is
a member of the Judicial Committee Congress, and Russell Frye,
representing South Carolina's seventh Congressional district. Russell, welcome and thank
(00:53):
you for joining me the Newtsworld.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Mister speaker, thanks for having me. It's an honor to
be here. Sir.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
I'm really curious, you know, we spent five and a
half hours in that hearing. What was your general reaction, well.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Two reactions. One, I thought the testimony that you and
the other witnesses gave was really compelling on both the
history of the courts, and while we're seeing this emergence
of nationwide injunction that has really grown since President Trump.
And then, of course, the other big thing that stands
out to me is the total inability of the Democrats
to even acknowledge the subject matter for which we were there.
(01:25):
They're talking about Elon Musk, they're talking about President Trump,
they're talking about everything else under the sun, but the
actual subject. And I think that seems to be kind
of their playbook right now is to not deal with
the subject in front of you.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
They really couldn't deal directly with the issue. As you know,
there was a recent Harvard Law Review article which said
that there's been a sharp rise in the number of
nationwide injunctions in the first Trump administration as compared to
either George W. Bush, Obama, or Biden. These last six
weeks have set an all time record for district judges
thinking they were an alternative president. The twenty twenty four
(02:01):
Harvard Law Review publication found that there were six injunctions
led under former President Bush, twelve under former President Obama,
sixty four in Trump's first term, and fourteen during former
President Biden's first three years in office. In fact, of
the sixty four nationwide injunctions against Trump's policy, only five
(02:22):
were issued by judges appointed by a Republican, leading ninety
two percent of injunctions issued by a judge appointed by
a Democrat. So the district judge is in a district,
and yet they're presuming that they can now issue an
injunction across the entire country. And this has become what
I described yesterday as the potential to be a judicial
(02:44):
coup d'etal where they're literally usurping the president's role. As
of April first this year, there are one hundred and
sixty two court cases against the Trump administration that involve
seventy different executive orders. What's your t about what's going on?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
It's a total bastardization of the federal rules of civil procedure.
We are ignoring class actions right. There is a way
in which to certify if a lawyer wants to do that.
Judges are superseding that. It is bad for the Supreme Court,
which is the supreme court of all courts, that you're
taking their authority and instead of having nine justices have
a nationwide rule in a court opinion that they would issue,
(03:24):
you have one judge in a federal district court that
is now superseding that absent some sort of successful appeal.
It is a complete violation of our separation of powers.
And I think you hit on this. You have three
co equal branches of government, but under this rubric you
have a bunch of black robe oligarchs who are superseding
the will of the American people vis a vis their
election of Donald Trump as president. Two, and probably really
(03:48):
interesting is since the nineteen sixties the dramatic rise, particularly
under President Trump, of nationwide injunctions that you have not
seen this legal phenomenon until the sixties, But even when
you did, as you highlighted, just now, you've seen eight
to ten per president. You have two thirds of all
nationwide injunctions being levied under one president in the modern era.
(04:11):
That's alarming. And so what we have here is an
absolute case of forum and venue shopping, where you pick
the lawyer who's favorable to your case, You identify the
district court where you think you could have a successful case,
you find your plaintiff in that district, and then you
sue the president and try to stop his agenda. This
is complete law fare. The Democrats have been doing it
(04:33):
for a very long time, but they have absolutely ramped
up their efforts under the second Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Once again, I always really struck that the Democrats counter
argument is that there's all of these nationwide injunctions because
Trump is overreaching his power. In fact, Representative Jamie Raskin,
who you know, is the ranking Democrat on the committee,
posted on x quote if Trump and Musk have suffered
an unprecedented a number of judicial injunctions, it is because
(05:00):
they have committed an unprecedented number of illegal actions. We
don't have rogue district judges. We have a rogue president
violating the Constitution and breaking the law every day. I mean,
what is your reaction to Raskin's argument?
Speaker 2 (05:12):
To respond to mister Raskin, the American people elected Donald
Trump to do exactly what he said that he was
going to do. He is doing exactly what he said
that he was going to do. He is going about
the will of the people. And you have federal district
court judges who are creating law from the bench rather
than ruling on cases and controversies before them. That is
what the Constitution requires, is that there must be an
(05:34):
actual case in front of you. And so that if
Speaker Gingrich was in front of say, Judge Fry's court,
I can only rule on Speaker Gingrich's case and not
similarly situated plaintiffs all across the country. We absolutely see this,
and the numbers don't lie. And when you have two
thirds of all nationwide injunctions coming under one president in
the modern era, it's remarkably horrendous legislating from the bench
(05:59):
that you've seen when you were speaker, But we also
see it even more now under President Trump.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
These lawyers are basically just appointed lawyers, and they're arrogating
to themselves that they're an alternative president, and in fact
they're superior to the president. I think there are six
hundred and sixty seven district court judges. Imagine every single
one of them decided they would take a piece of
the federal government and they would be dominant, and the
(06:25):
president had to obey them. I don't think you can
have six hundred alternaty presidents.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
No, and even to get their speaker these judges. Certainly,
we've talked about Rule twenty three as it pertains to
class actions earlier, but Rule sixty five, where if you're
going to issue an injunction. You're also supposed to secure
a bond, which is presumably to help relieve the aggrieved
party if the efforts of an injunction are not successful.
These judges are not even following their own guidance and
(06:52):
their own rules when they're issuing these injunctions. And you're
exactly right. The nation and the Constitution does not contemplate
six hundred and six executives of the federal government. It
contemplates one president of the United States. And something that
I think was brought out a little bit too, but
I want to highlight is the judges have always been
if you look at prior opinions, they've always been very
(07:13):
hesitant to engage in issues of national security. And the
reason why they do that, if you read these opinions,
is that they're not in the position of understanding or
seeing sensitive information, classified information. They recognize aptly that they
are not the commander in chief, and so they're always
hesitant to engage in cases where the president is exercising
(07:34):
his commander in chief authority, except with President Trump, which
you've seen with Judge Boseburg and these Venezuelan flights.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Not only did he say they could not deport Venezuela
and criminals. But he then said, by the way, turn
around the airplane and bring them back. It was an
act of such I thought egregious overkill on his part.
I'm amazed that he hasn't already been in some way sanctioned.
But you know, Speaker Johnson suggested during a press conference
the Congress could eliminate an entire district court or eliminate
(08:04):
funding for certain courts. Let me quote him. He said,
we do have authority over the federal courts. We can
eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding
over the courts and all these other things. But desperate
times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.
What's your response to that analysis, Well, I.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Think we've seen this before in history, right where Thomas
Jefferson comes in and removes and creates new courts because
John Adams tried to stack the courts, and so we
absolutely do. This is where we have three coequal branches
of government, each operate as a check. One of the
checks that we have is the power of the purse.
The other is the law in the jurisdiction in which
we could extend to federal district courts, maybe strengthening the
(08:45):
bond requirement or enforcing that. And of course the courts
can police themselves. The Chief Justice is not without tools
in his toolbox to reign in the judiciary. He has
not done that. He rather, I think the statement that
he released talked about the appellate process and that if
you don't like the opinion, then you could go the
traditional appeals route. Certainly that's the case, no one disputes that.
(09:06):
But the Chief Justice also has the ability to go
in and supersede his district court judges and rein them
in on what kinds of cases that they can take,
the mechanisms and the procedure and the process in which
they're going to undertake. These are things that are at
his disposal, but he has not done that.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I started my testimony the Judiciary Committee by citing twelve names,
Richard Bassett, Hagbert Benson, Benjamin Born, William Griffith, Samuel Hitchcock,
Philip Barton, Kay Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, Oliver Wilcart Junior, WILLIAMS. McClung,
Charles McGill, and WILLIAMS. Tillman. And I did that because
(10:01):
these were actual sitting judges. A very sophisticated lawyer, it
said to me, well, Jefferson may have abolished those courts,
but they must have been empty because of the lifetime
appointment rule. But the Jeffersonians came back and said, no, no,
you only have a lifetime appointment if there's a court.
So we're not going to try to impeach you. That's
too complicated, too difficult. We're just going to eliminate the court.
(10:23):
And therefore, by definition, you don't have any place to
go to work. And it turns out every single one
of them went on to find a different job because
in fact, they quit being paid. I mean, it's an
amazing act.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
It's a remarkable time in history. And I think it
just highlights too the dysfunction that the other side raises
right now, that this is not an attack necessarily on
the judiciary. This is an attack on the abuse and
the steps that they're taking that are much broader than
they've ever taken before. History shows us the way, and
there are a lot of things that the Congress has
at their disposal to reign these courts in likewise, the
(10:58):
judiciary can reign itself in well. Absent congressional bills or legislation,
and absent congressional action, they can do this themselves.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Seven years ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas one quote,
I am skeptical the district courts of the authority to
enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a
century and a half after the founding, and they appear
to be inconsistent with long standing limits on equitable relief
in the power of Article three courts. If they're popular
(11:28):
to continues, this Court must address their legality. Is he right?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
I think absolutely, And I think Elena Kagan, you know,
a liberal on the Court, has been very critical of
nationwide injunctions, and so I think the Justice has recognized
the problem that we have. I think the American people
see it on full display every single day when President
Trump is impeded and his agenda is impeded by these
district court level judges where plaintiffs are forum shopping. So
(11:53):
everybody sees what is going on except the Democrats, and
quite frankly, I think they see it too, they just
don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
I hope that the Chief Justice will in fact take steps,
but if they don't Congress and Ice introduce the No
Rogue Rulings Act, which seeks to limit the power of
district courts issue nationwide injunctions. Do you think it's important
to pass this?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I do, and I think in any Congress. Really, as
you've talked about when we've talked about today, with the
increasing amount of nationwide injunctions, there's got to be some
curtailment of judicial authority when it comes to issuing these,
that if you're going to do them, that it might
be a three judge panel instead of a single district
court judge. That if you're going to do them, that
you would strengthen the bond requirements so that you actually
(12:37):
have to put up a bond to secure the injunction.
These are all common sense things regulating the Administrative Procedures
Act that is a key component of what Democrats have
been doing against the President as well. So raining these
abuses in and streamlining the process I think makes for
a healthier court. It also restores confidence that the Court
is being truly independent and an arbiter of justice and
(13:00):
facts and the law, and not a political tool of
the Democrats to achieve a result that they could not
achieve through an election.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's very interesting because, in addition to what Congress and
Ice is doing, in the House, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Chuck Grassley has introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, we
should also limit judicial rulings to the parties involved and
make injunctions against the government immediately appealable. Do you see
these two bills as being comparable.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I do. I mean, there's some minor differences. I think
those are reconcilable between the two chambers. The big thing is,
I think is you talked about the appellate process, which
is huge that even if an injunction is wrong, good
luck getting in front of an appellate quarter. Then if
you get a temporary restraining order that's fourteen days, it
rolls into an injunction and then you're at that particular
point you're allowed to get an appeal, but it doesn't
(13:50):
happen overnight. So fast tracking that is huge. And so
it seems to me that both chambers, while the bills
are a little bit different, they have the same mindset,
which is we have to rein in the out of
control district court judges.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
If you already have one hundred and sixty two court
cases against the Trump administration. How could the Supreme Court
ever hear all the appeals?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They don't have the bandwidth, right, They don't have the
bandwidth in which to do that. So some things, even
the most egregious abuses of judicial power, might be overlooked
because there are other things that you have to work on.
You remember this as a speaker. There's a lot of
good policies and proposals that people put into bills, but
there's only so much bandwidth that a Congress can take
at any one time. The same thing goes with the courts.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
In that context, How concerned are you that if we
don't fix this, that in fact, we have an enormous
transfer of power to the courts in away from the
elected officials.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
It's remarkably alarming that we need to restore the balance
of power between the three branches of government. There is
no point and the President might as well pack his
bags and go home, and the Congress too, if it's
just going to be judges that are making the rules
for all of us to live under. So we've got
to rain this in. Butngress has an obligation to do that.
We're doing that both in the House, and Senator Grassly
in the Senate, and the courts equally have an obligation
(15:07):
to reign in these practices. Do justices understand what's going on?
You've had criticisms of nationwide injunctions from judges on the
right and the left. People see it for what it is,
and so the courts absolutely should engage in this space
too and police themselves. And it is probably the quicker
way if the courts do this on their own without
us in the Congress having to go legislate what they
(15:30):
should be doing.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
So, if the Chief Justice wanted to preempt all this legislation,
how does the system work at that level?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, I think the Chief Justice, as the chief administrative
officer for the judiciary, can issue rules and rulings and
edicts if you will, on how these things transpire. That
if a judge is going to issue a nationwide injunction,
that they cannot overlook Rule sixty five of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as it pertains to the bond.
That if a judge is going to issue anationwide injunction,
(16:01):
that they must do so with a panel of judges.
I think the Chief Justice actually has a lot of
tools in his toolbox to do this on his own.
What we would also do through legislation.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Just to clarify for most of us who are not lawyers,
the importance of the bond issue is, in order to
file this claim, you have to put up a large
enough bond that if you lose the case, the bond
then pays for the legal expenses of the person who
you tried to get an adjunction against. So if a
(16:32):
district court tuddition injunction in a case that had a bond,
but that injunction was then turned around by the Supreme
Court and eliminated, then the person who filed the claim
would actually lose the money to pay for the defendant.
Is that correct.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's correct. It's exactly correct. And the purpose of the
bond is to secure the rights. Then if your injunction
is ruled and valid by a higher court, that that
person is now compensated for having been tied up in
court for so long, meant as a protectionary measure against
somebody who an injunction is levied against. And so these
are common sense things I think the Chief Justice could do,
(17:08):
but which he's not yet done.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
In those kind of circumstances, you'd have a lot fewer
of these ideologically driven lawsuits. I think ninety two percent
of the nationwide injunctions against Trump came from Democratic judges,
from an activist on the left. This is just a
free hunting pass. But if they had to actually post
a bond, he was suddenly could become a very expensive project.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Correct. And you know how most of these things go.
The plaintiffs are plaintiffs, but their entire litigation is funded
by some third party group, right, which is also why
we probably need third party funding legislation and laws in
federal courts to show who's funding these things, who's behind
the lawyers who are making the case. So you find
a friendly plaintiff, you find a friendly jurisdiction, you put
(17:55):
up the money, and you go, like you said, try
to get a free shot. And if the judge is
an enforcing rule sixties, as it pertains to the bond,
that you really have a free shot. There's nothing that
compels you to think about your actions before you take them,
that you truly have a friendly judge and a friendly jurisdiction.
And more often than not, as the evidence suggests, you're
getting these nationwide injunctions where you otherwise couldn't afford to
(18:17):
do so, or that legally would be disputable in other
jurisdictions around the country.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
At the present time. If you're a left wing activist
and you find a friendly judge, you just go in
and say, but harmed or that this is unconstitutional, you
file it. There's no risk to you at all. You
tie up the government and trying to fight over this.
The judge issues an injunction blocking the Trump administration from
doing the things that it got elected to do, and
(19:00):
it's essentially a happy hunting season with no consequence.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Correct. The Constitution is very clear the courts are there
to hear cases and controversies before them, that they're not
supposed to supersede some nationwide policy that if Speaker Gingrich
goes before the court, the court is only ruling on
Speaker Gingrich's case. They're not ruling on mine and other
peoples who might be similarly situated. They're ruling on what's
right in front of them. So that's the danger of
(19:26):
nationwide injunctions is that you're by default creating a class
action for people who are not even in front of
you before the court, where you have not weighed their
particular evidence where you have not heard the government's argument
maybe for or against their individual cases. And so that's
the risk. The biggest nationwide injunction is the Supreme Court.
That's the stop gap that if cases elevate themselves all
(19:48):
the way there, that the Supreme Court can come in
and weigh in. But you're basically neutering the Supreme Court
completely and putting in one district court judge that supersedes
the power of the Supreme Court. They're coming in first,
and if you're successful, maybe in an appeal, maybe you
might get in front of the Supreme Court, but most
cases never make it that far.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Well, a totally different topic for a second. You represent
South Carolina. When you go back home, what are folks
telling you? Do they think that the Trump is moving
in the right direction? Are they think that there's real
change happening? Or what kind of feedback do you get
when you visit back home?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Well, I guess it depends, right. I Mean, if you're
a liberal, you're absolutely incensed and you're mad, you're furious.
But most people that I talk to, people who study
politics or history, or maybe just your average guy or lady,
they're thrilled with what's going on. They like the shakeup
of the Washington establishment. They like that the president is
doing what he said that he was going to do.
(20:44):
They are thrilled that he is enforcing the laws that
we have on the books as it pertains to illegal immigration.
They are thrilled that the president is holding other countries
accountable for their actions and how they're taking advantage of
the United States. They are beyond thrilled on the president's
dances as it pertains to taxes, in everything that he
is doing. So certainly the conservatives are happy, but I
(21:06):
would also say that your average American who might watch
the news once a week, they're very happy with what
is going on. I see them in the airport, I
see them in the streets when I do a festival
in the district. They're really pleased with what's going on
in our nation's capital. Common sense is back. They see it,
they feel it, and they're excited about it.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Do you enjoy the process of being a congressman?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I do. I mean, it's frustrating like everybody else. I mean,
I'm sure you recognize this. There's immense power in what
you do, But you look at that building every day
that you work in and you're just in awe that
I get to work in this building, that this is
the symbol of the free world, that we are a
nation of laws, that we are three coequal branches of government,
That a population in South Carolina along the coast and
(21:50):
the PD regions of our state elected me to represent
and be their voice in the Congress. And so even
when I'm frustrated, I think about that mission. I think
about the importance of this moment on the country, on
the future of the country, and I'm excited about it.
I'm optimistic about our future, and I know that we
can get the job done.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Does it strike you but this are one of the
things I think the public least understands that if you
fly into Washington, you go to work, you work four
or five days, you fly home, and you immediately continue
going to work. I mean, it's not like you have
a weekend off because you go to town hall meetings,
you meet with people, you listen to constituents. My experience
was that it's a very hard, time consuming job and
(22:30):
you've got to be really dedicated to doing you is
that sort of what you experience?
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Absolutely, And I kind of joke about this, speaker, and
you'll appreciate this. You know, even as a freshman congressman
last Congress, and this is my second term, I said,
my gosh, I work more than the President of the
United States, right, I mean the President of the United
States is in the office four hours a day and
it sleeps presumably twenty and here I am at sixteen hours,
seventeen hours in a day. And then when you're home,
(22:56):
you're not sitting around your house. You're out in the community.
You're meeting with local leaders, You're talking to job creators
in the district. You're trying to understand what's happening, what
the federal impact is on the local level, so that
you can do your job when you're back in Washington.
It's incredibly time consuming.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
The good You clearly worked harder than Joe Biden. I'm
not quite sure you work harder than Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I don't think any of us do.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I think that may be almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's true, That's very true.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Don't you find us really exciting to be part of this?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
I do. I think the mission is great, the weight
of the moment is very powerful. That we have a
very big job in front of us. We've got to
get together and do our work in past the president's agenda,
support the president, and that if we do that, then
that's not just favorable maybe for the next election, but
that's going to set this country up for the next generation.
And that's why you served, and that's why I serve today.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I've been very impressed at having been Speaker and having
served in the House for twenty years, watching Mike Johnson
grow into this job. He was a back centure basically
fifteen minutes later a speaker. We never had the kind
of narrow majority you guys have had, and I think
it's been fascinating to watch almost the entire team, not
quite one hundred percent, but almost really begin to be
(24:14):
a team to work together to get things done as
a majority rather than in the minority. You can have
lots of negatives because you're not gonna get anything done anyway,
but if you're the majority, you've really got to pass stuff.
And the size margins you've had, which of course went
up by two when we picked up those two special
elections in Florida. Yes, sir, don't you feel that there's
a much greater team spirit than there was six months ago.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I do, and I think that the Congress has certainly
seems to have healed old divisions, that things that plagued
us from a division standpoint are not as existent. And
I think we all want to drive the present's agenda.
We know that despite our differences amongst Republicans, that we
are much more alike than the other side of the aisle,
and that if we're going to succeed, that we have
(24:59):
no other choice but to stick together. That if a
bill comes to the floor, it might not be my
perfect version or your perfect version, but it is an
infinitely superior version than what the other side would propose.
And I think people recognize that both the conservatives and
the moderates in the Congress, and you're starting to see
very early signs of in a spree de corps, if
(25:21):
you will, amongst Republicans, and that we're driving an agenda
despite the fact that we have the narrowest majority in
the modern era.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Well, I'm very proud of all of you. I think
you're doing a remarkable job. Russell. I want to thank
you for joining me today. I want to let our
listeners know they can find out more about the work
you are doing for South Carolina seventh Congressional District by
visiting your website at fryand dot House dot gov. And
I really appreciate you taking this time.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Thank you, speaker, what a tremendous honor to be with
you today. Appreciate your testimony and look forward to seeing
you again.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Thank you to my guests, Congress and Russell Fry. You
can learn more about his work on the House on
our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtworld is produced
by Gingrishtree sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guardnsei Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show
was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team
at Gingrishtree sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
(26:21):
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review. So O this
can learn what it's all about. Right now. Listeners of
Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns
at gingriichspree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm newt Gingrich.
This is Newtsworld.
On this episode of The Newtsworld. On Tuesday, I testified
in front of the House Judiciary Committee for their hearing
on judicial overreach and constitutional limits in the federal courts,
and I wanted to talk about the committee hearing and
Congressman Daryl A's proposed bill, the No Rogue Rulings Act,
which would limit the power of district judges to impose
nationwide injunctions like the one from Judge James Boseberg that
(00:29):
barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act
to deport Venezuela and illegal immigrants. I'm really pleased to
welcome my guest, who was also with us and is
a member of the Judicial Committee Congress, and Russell Frye,
representing South Carolina's seventh Congressional district. Russell, welcome and thank
(00:53):
you for joining me the Newtsworld.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Mister speaker, thanks for having me. It's an honor to
be here. Sir.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
I'm really curious, you know, we spent five and a
half hours in that hearing. What was your general reaction, well.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Two reactions. One, I thought the testimony that you and
the other witnesses gave was really compelling on both the
history of the courts, and while we're seeing this emergence
of nationwide injunction that has really grown since President Trump.
And then, of course, the other big thing that stands
out to me is the total inability of the Democrats
to even acknowledge the subject matter for which we were there.
(01:25):
They're talking about Elon Musk, they're talking about President Trump,
they're talking about everything else under the sun, but the
actual subject. And I think that seems to be kind
of their playbook right now is to not deal with
the subject in front of you.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
They really couldn't deal directly with the issue. As you know,
there was a recent Harvard Law Review article which said
that there's been a sharp rise in the number of
nationwide injunctions in the first Trump administration as compared to
either George W. Bush, Obama, or Biden. These last six
weeks have set an all time record for district judges
thinking they were an alternative president. The twenty twenty four
(02:01):
Harvard Law Review publication found that there were six injunctions
led under former President Bush, twelve under former President Obama,
sixty four in Trump's first term, and fourteen during former
President Biden's first three years in office. In fact, of
the sixty four nationwide injunctions against Trump's policy, only five
(02:22):
were issued by judges appointed by a Republican, leading ninety
two percent of injunctions issued by a judge appointed by
a Democrat. So the district judge is in a district,
and yet they're presuming that they can now issue an
injunction across the entire country. And this has become what
I described yesterday as the potential to be a judicial
(02:44):
coup d'etal where they're literally usurping the president's role. As
of April first this year, there are one hundred and
sixty two court cases against the Trump administration that involve
seventy different executive orders. What's your t about what's going on?
Speaker 2 (03:02):
It's a total bastardization of the federal rules of civil procedure.
We are ignoring class actions right. There is a way
in which to certify if a lawyer wants to do that.
Judges are superseding that. It is bad for the Supreme Court,
which is the supreme court of all courts, that you're
taking their authority and instead of having nine justices have
a nationwide rule in a court opinion that they would issue,
(03:24):
you have one judge in a federal district court that
is now superseding that absent some sort of successful appeal.
It is a complete violation of our separation of powers.
And I think you hit on this. You have three
co equal branches of government, but under this rubric you
have a bunch of black robe oligarchs who are superseding
the will of the American people vis a vis their
election of Donald Trump as president. Two, and probably really
(03:48):
interesting is since the nineteen sixties the dramatic rise, particularly
under President Trump, of nationwide injunctions that you have not
seen this legal phenomenon until the sixties, But even when
you did, as you highlighted, just now, you've seen eight
to ten per president. You have two thirds of all
nationwide injunctions being levied under one president in the modern era.
(04:11):
That's alarming. And so what we have here is an
absolute case of forum and venue shopping, where you pick
the lawyer who's favorable to your case, You identify the
district court where you think you could have a successful case,
you find your plaintiff in that district, and then you
sue the president and try to stop his agenda. This
is complete law fare. The Democrats have been doing it
(04:33):
for a very long time, but they have absolutely ramped
up their efforts under the second Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Once again, I always really struck that the Democrats counter
argument is that there's all of these nationwide injunctions because
Trump is overreaching his power. In fact, Representative Jamie Raskin,
who you know, is the ranking Democrat on the committee,
posted on x quote if Trump and Musk have suffered
an unprecedented a number of judicial injunctions, it is because
(05:00):
they have committed an unprecedented number of illegal actions. We
don't have rogue district judges. We have a rogue president
violating the Constitution and breaking the law every day. I mean,
what is your reaction to Raskin's argument?
Speaker 2 (05:12):
To respond to mister Raskin, the American people elected Donald
Trump to do exactly what he said that he was
going to do. He is doing exactly what he said
that he was going to do. He is going about
the will of the people. And you have federal district
court judges who are creating law from the bench rather
than ruling on cases and controversies before them. That is
what the Constitution requires, is that there must be an
(05:34):
actual case in front of you. And so that if
Speaker Gingrich was in front of say, Judge Fry's court,
I can only rule on Speaker Gingrich's case and not
similarly situated plaintiffs all across the country. We absolutely see this,
and the numbers don't lie. And when you have two
thirds of all nationwide injunctions coming under one president in
the modern era, it's remarkably horrendous legislating from the bench
(05:59):
that you've seen when you were speaker, But we also
see it even more now under President Trump.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
These lawyers are basically just appointed lawyers, and they're arrogating
to themselves that they're an alternative president, and in fact
they're superior to the president. I think there are six
hundred and sixty seven district court judges. Imagine every single
one of them decided they would take a piece of
the federal government and they would be dominant, and the
(06:25):
president had to obey them. I don't think you can
have six hundred alternaty presidents.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
No, and even to get their speaker these judges. Certainly,
we've talked about Rule twenty three as it pertains to
class actions earlier, but Rule sixty five, where if you're
going to issue an injunction. You're also supposed to secure
a bond, which is presumably to help relieve the aggrieved
party if the efforts of an injunction are not successful.
These judges are not even following their own guidance and
(06:52):
their own rules when they're issuing these injunctions. And you're
exactly right. The nation and the Constitution does not contemplate
six hundred and six executives of the federal government. It
contemplates one president of the United States. And something that
I think was brought out a little bit too, but
I want to highlight is the judges have always been
if you look at prior opinions, they've always been very
(07:13):
hesitant to engage in issues of national security. And the
reason why they do that, if you read these opinions,
is that they're not in the position of understanding or
seeing sensitive information, classified information. They recognize aptly that they
are not the commander in chief, and so they're always
hesitant to engage in cases where the president is exercising
(07:34):
his commander in chief authority, except with President Trump, which
you've seen with Judge Boseburg and these Venezuelan flights.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Not only did he say they could not deport Venezuela
and criminals. But he then said, by the way, turn
around the airplane and bring them back. It was an
act of such I thought egregious overkill on his part.
I'm amazed that he hasn't already been in some way sanctioned.
But you know, Speaker Johnson suggested during a press conference
the Congress could eliminate an entire district court or eliminate
(08:04):
funding for certain courts. Let me quote him. He said,
we do have authority over the federal courts. We can
eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding
over the courts and all these other things. But desperate
times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.
What's your response to that analysis, Well, I.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Think we've seen this before in history, right where Thomas
Jefferson comes in and removes and creates new courts because
John Adams tried to stack the courts, and so we
absolutely do. This is where we have three coequal branches
of government, each operate as a check. One of the
checks that we have is the power of the purse.
The other is the law in the jurisdiction in which
we could extend to federal district courts, maybe strengthening the
(08:45):
bond requirement or enforcing that. And of course the courts
can police themselves. The Chief Justice is not without tools
in his toolbox to reign in the judiciary. He has
not done that. He rather, I think the statement that
he released talked about the appellate process and that if
you don't like the opinion, then you could go the
traditional appeals route. Certainly that's the case, no one disputes that.
(09:06):
But the Chief Justice also has the ability to go
in and supersede his district court judges and rein them
in on what kinds of cases that they can take,
the mechanisms and the procedure and the process in which
they're going to undertake. These are things that are at
his disposal, but he has not done that.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I started my testimony the Judiciary Committee by citing twelve names,
Richard Bassett, Hagbert Benson, Benjamin Born, William Griffith, Samuel Hitchcock,
Philip Barton, Kay Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, Oliver Wilcart Junior, WILLIAMS. McClung,
Charles McGill, and WILLIAMS. Tillman. And I did that because
(10:01):
these were actual sitting judges. A very sophisticated lawyer, it
said to me, well, Jefferson may have abolished those courts,
but they must have been empty because of the lifetime
appointment rule. But the Jeffersonians came back and said, no, no,
you only have a lifetime appointment if there's a court.
So we're not going to try to impeach you. That's
too complicated, too difficult. We're just going to eliminate the court.
(10:23):
And therefore, by definition, you don't have any place to
go to work. And it turns out every single one
of them went on to find a different job because
in fact, they quit being paid. I mean, it's an
amazing act.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
It's a remarkable time in history. And I think it
just highlights too the dysfunction that the other side raises
right now, that this is not an attack necessarily on
the judiciary. This is an attack on the abuse and
the steps that they're taking that are much broader than
they've ever taken before. History shows us the way, and
there are a lot of things that the Congress has
at their disposal to reign these courts in likewise, the
(10:58):
judiciary can reign itself in well. Absent congressional bills or legislation,
and absent congressional action, they can do this themselves.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Seven years ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas one quote,
I am skeptical the district courts of the authority to
enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a
century and a half after the founding, and they appear
to be inconsistent with long standing limits on equitable relief
in the power of Article three courts. If they're popular
(11:28):
to continues, this Court must address their legality. Is he right?
Speaker 2 (11:32):
I think absolutely, And I think Elena Kagan, you know,
a liberal on the Court, has been very critical of
nationwide injunctions, and so I think the Justice has recognized
the problem that we have. I think the American people
see it on full display every single day when President
Trump is impeded and his agenda is impeded by these
district court level judges where plaintiffs are forum shopping. So
(11:53):
everybody sees what is going on except the Democrats, and
quite frankly, I think they see it too, they just
don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
I hope that the Chief Justice will in fact take steps,
but if they don't Congress and Ice introduce the No
Rogue Rulings Act, which seeks to limit the power of
district courts issue nationwide injunctions. Do you think it's important
to pass this?
Speaker 2 (12:15):
I do, and I think in any Congress. Really, as
you've talked about when we've talked about today, with the
increasing amount of nationwide injunctions, there's got to be some
curtailment of judicial authority when it comes to issuing these,
that if you're going to do them, that it might
be a three judge panel instead of a single district
court judge. That if you're going to do them, that
you would strengthen the bond requirements so that you actually
(12:37):
have to put up a bond to secure the injunction.
These are all common sense things regulating the Administrative Procedures
Act that is a key component of what Democrats have
been doing against the President as well. So raining these
abuses in and streamlining the process I think makes for
a healthier court. It also restores confidence that the Court
is being truly independent and an arbiter of justice and
(13:00):
facts and the law, and not a political tool of
the Democrats to achieve a result that they could not
achieve through an election.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's very interesting because, in addition to what Congress and
Ice is doing, in the House, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Chuck Grassley has introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, we
should also limit judicial rulings to the parties involved and
make injunctions against the government immediately appealable. Do you see
these two bills as being comparable.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I do. I mean, there's some minor differences. I think
those are reconcilable between the two chambers. The big thing is,
I think is you talked about the appellate process, which
is huge that even if an injunction is wrong, good
luck getting in front of an appellate quarter. Then if
you get a temporary restraining order that's fourteen days, it
rolls into an injunction and then you're at that particular
point you're allowed to get an appeal, but it doesn't
(13:50):
happen overnight. So fast tracking that is huge. And so
it seems to me that both chambers, while the bills
are a little bit different, they have the same mindset,
which is we have to rein in the out of
control district court judges.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
If you already have one hundred and sixty two court
cases against the Trump administration. How could the Supreme Court
ever hear all the appeals?
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They don't have the bandwidth, right, They don't have the
bandwidth in which to do that. So some things, even
the most egregious abuses of judicial power, might be overlooked
because there are other things that you have to work on.
You remember this as a speaker. There's a lot of
good policies and proposals that people put into bills, but
there's only so much bandwidth that a Congress can take
at any one time. The same thing goes with the courts.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
In that context, How concerned are you that if we
don't fix this, that in fact, we have an enormous
transfer of power to the courts in away from the
elected officials.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
It's remarkably alarming that we need to restore the balance
of power between the three branches of government. There is
no point and the President might as well pack his
bags and go home, and the Congress too, if it's
just going to be judges that are making the rules
for all of us to live under. So we've got
to rain this in. Butngress has an obligation to do that.
We're doing that both in the House, and Senator Grassly
in the Senate, and the courts equally have an obligation
(15:07):
to reign in these practices. Do justices understand what's going on?
You've had criticisms of nationwide injunctions from judges on the
right and the left. People see it for what it is,
and so the courts absolutely should engage in this space
too and police themselves. And it is probably the quicker
way if the courts do this on their own without
us in the Congress having to go legislate what they
(15:30):
should be doing.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
So, if the Chief Justice wanted to preempt all this legislation,
how does the system work at that level?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Well, I think the Chief Justice, as the chief administrative
officer for the judiciary, can issue rules and rulings and
edicts if you will, on how these things transpire. That
if a judge is going to issue a nationwide injunction,
that they cannot overlook Rule sixty five of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as it pertains to the bond.
That if a judge is going to issue anationwide injunction,
(16:01):
that they must do so with a panel of judges.
I think the Chief Justice actually has a lot of
tools in his toolbox to do this on his own.
What we would also do through legislation.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Just to clarify for most of us who are not lawyers,
the importance of the bond issue is, in order to
file this claim, you have to put up a large
enough bond that if you lose the case, the bond
then pays for the legal expenses of the person who
you tried to get an adjunction against. So if a
(16:32):
district court tuddition injunction in a case that had a bond,
but that injunction was then turned around by the Supreme
Court and eliminated, then the person who filed the claim
would actually lose the money to pay for the defendant.
Is that correct.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
That's correct. It's exactly correct. And the purpose of the
bond is to secure the rights. Then if your injunction
is ruled and valid by a higher court, that that
person is now compensated for having been tied up in
court for so long, meant as a protectionary measure against
somebody who an injunction is levied against. And so these
are common sense things I think the Chief Justice could do,
(17:08):
but which he's not yet done.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
In those kind of circumstances, you'd have a lot fewer
of these ideologically driven lawsuits. I think ninety two percent
of the nationwide injunctions against Trump came from Democratic judges,
from an activist on the left. This is just a
free hunting pass. But if they had to actually post
a bond, he was suddenly could become a very expensive project.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Correct. And you know how most of these things go.
The plaintiffs are plaintiffs, but their entire litigation is funded
by some third party group, right, which is also why
we probably need third party funding legislation and laws in
federal courts to show who's funding these things, who's behind
the lawyers who are making the case. So you find
a friendly plaintiff, you find a friendly jurisdiction, you put
(17:55):
up the money, and you go, like you said, try
to get a free shot. And if the judge is
an enforcing rule sixties, as it pertains to the bond,
that you really have a free shot. There's nothing that
compels you to think about your actions before you take them,
that you truly have a friendly judge and a friendly jurisdiction.
And more often than not, as the evidence suggests, you're
getting these nationwide injunctions where you otherwise couldn't afford to
(18:17):
do so, or that legally would be disputable in other
jurisdictions around the country.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
At the present time. If you're a left wing activist
and you find a friendly judge, you just go in
and say, but harmed or that this is unconstitutional, you
file it. There's no risk to you at all. You
tie up the government and trying to fight over this.
The judge issues an injunction blocking the Trump administration from
doing the things that it got elected to do, and
(19:00):
it's essentially a happy hunting season with no consequence.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Correct. The Constitution is very clear the courts are there
to hear cases and controversies before them, that they're not
supposed to supersede some nationwide policy that if Speaker Gingrich
goes before the court, the court is only ruling on
Speaker Gingrich's case. They're not ruling on mine and other
peoples who might be similarly situated. They're ruling on what's
right in front of them. So that's the danger of
(19:26):
nationwide injunctions is that you're by default creating a class
action for people who are not even in front of
you before the court, where you have not weighed their
particular evidence where you have not heard the government's argument
maybe for or against their individual cases. And so that's
the risk. The biggest nationwide injunction is the Supreme Court.
That's the stop gap that if cases elevate themselves all
(19:48):
the way there, that the Supreme Court can come in
and weigh in. But you're basically neutering the Supreme Court
completely and putting in one district court judge that supersedes
the power of the Supreme Court. They're coming in first,
and if you're successful, maybe in an appeal, maybe you
might get in front of the Supreme Court, but most
cases never make it that far.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
Well, a totally different topic for a second. You represent
South Carolina. When you go back home, what are folks
telling you? Do they think that the Trump is moving
in the right direction? Are they think that there's real
change happening? Or what kind of feedback do you get
when you visit back home?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Well, I guess it depends, right. I Mean, if you're
a liberal, you're absolutely incensed and you're mad, you're furious.
But most people that I talk to, people who study
politics or history, or maybe just your average guy or lady,
they're thrilled with what's going on. They like the shakeup
of the Washington establishment. They like that the president is
doing what he said that he was going to do.
(20:44):
They are thrilled that he is enforcing the laws that
we have on the books as it pertains to illegal immigration.
They are thrilled that the president is holding other countries
accountable for their actions and how they're taking advantage of
the United States. They are beyond thrilled on the president's
dances as it pertains to taxes, in everything that he
is doing. So certainly the conservatives are happy, but I
(21:06):
would also say that your average American who might watch
the news once a week, they're very happy with what
is going on. I see them in the airport, I
see them in the streets when I do a festival
in the district. They're really pleased with what's going on
in our nation's capital. Common sense is back. They see it,
they feel it, and they're excited about it.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Do you enjoy the process of being a congressman?
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I do. I mean, it's frustrating like everybody else. I mean,
I'm sure you recognize this. There's immense power in what
you do, But you look at that building every day
that you work in and you're just in awe that
I get to work in this building, that this is
the symbol of the free world, that we are a
nation of laws, that we are three coequal branches of government,
That a population in South Carolina along the coast and
(21:50):
the PD regions of our state elected me to represent
and be their voice in the Congress. And so even
when I'm frustrated, I think about that mission. I think
about the importance of this moment on the country, on
the future of the country, and I'm excited about it.
I'm optimistic about our future, and I know that we
can get the job done.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Does it strike you but this are one of the
things I think the public least understands that if you
fly into Washington, you go to work, you work four
or five days, you fly home, and you immediately continue
going to work. I mean, it's not like you have
a weekend off because you go to town hall meetings,
you meet with people, you listen to constituents. My experience
was that it's a very hard, time consuming job and
(22:30):
you've got to be really dedicated to doing you is
that sort of what you experience?
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Absolutely, And I kind of joke about this, speaker, and
you'll appreciate this. You know, even as a freshman congressman
last Congress, and this is my second term, I said,
my gosh, I work more than the President of the
United States, right, I mean the President of the United
States is in the office four hours a day and
it sleeps presumably twenty and here I am at sixteen hours,
seventeen hours in a day. And then when you're home,
(22:56):
you're not sitting around your house. You're out in the community.
You're meeting with local leaders, You're talking to job creators
in the district. You're trying to understand what's happening, what
the federal impact is on the local level, so that
you can do your job when you're back in Washington.
It's incredibly time consuming.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
The good You clearly worked harder than Joe Biden. I'm
not quite sure you work harder than Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I don't think any of us do.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I think that may be almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's true, That's very true.
Speaker 1 (23:26):
Don't you find us really exciting to be part of this?
Speaker 2 (23:29):
I do. I think the mission is great, the weight
of the moment is very powerful. That we have a
very big job in front of us. We've got to
get together and do our work in past the president's agenda,
support the president, and that if we do that, then
that's not just favorable maybe for the next election, but
that's going to set this country up for the next generation.
And that's why you served, and that's why I serve today.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I've been very impressed at having been Speaker and having
served in the House for twenty years, watching Mike Johnson
grow into this job. He was a back centure basically
fifteen minutes later a speaker. We never had the kind
of narrow majority you guys have had, and I think
it's been fascinating to watch almost the entire team, not
quite one hundred percent, but almost really begin to be
(24:14):
a team to work together to get things done as
a majority rather than in the minority. You can have
lots of negatives because you're not gonna get anything done anyway,
but if you're the majority, you've really got to pass stuff.
And the size margins you've had, which of course went
up by two when we picked up those two special
elections in Florida. Yes, sir, don't you feel that there's
a much greater team spirit than there was six months ago.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I do, and I think that the Congress has certainly
seems to have healed old divisions, that things that plagued
us from a division standpoint are not as existent. And
I think we all want to drive the present's agenda.
We know that despite our differences amongst Republicans, that we
are much more alike than the other side of the aisle,
and that if we're going to succeed, that we have
(24:59):
no other choice but to stick together. That if a
bill comes to the floor, it might not be my
perfect version or your perfect version, but it is an
infinitely superior version than what the other side would propose.
And I think people recognize that both the conservatives and
the moderates in the Congress, and you're starting to see
very early signs of in a spree de corps, if
(25:21):
you will, amongst Republicans, and that we're driving an agenda
despite the fact that we have the narrowest majority in
the modern era.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
Well, I'm very proud of all of you. I think
you're doing a remarkable job. Russell. I want to thank
you for joining me today. I want to let our
listeners know they can find out more about the work
you are doing for South Carolina seventh Congressional District by
visiting your website at fryand dot House dot gov. And
I really appreciate you taking this time.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Thank you, speaker, what a tremendous honor to be with
you today. Appreciate your testimony and look forward to seeing
you again.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Thank you to my guests, Congress and Russell Fry. You
can learn more about his work on the House on
our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtworld is produced
by Gingrishtree sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guardnsei Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show
was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team
at Gingrishtree sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
(26:21):
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review. So O this
can learn what it's all about. Right now. Listeners of
Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns
at gingriichspree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm newt Gingrich.
This is Newtsworld.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!