At a recent Federalist Society conference, Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit suggested that federal trial court judges should bear more personal accountability when issuing nationwide rulings. This concept was humorously illustrated with scenarios ranging from the removal of judges from cases to more extreme, albeit facetious, measures such as harming a judge’s pet. VanDyke’s comments arose from concerns regarding what many perceive to be judicial overreach, particularly in reference to rulings against the Trump administration’s initiatives.
During the conference, VanDyke explored possible mechanisms to limit the practice of nationwide injunctions, short of an outright ban by the Supreme Court. His remarks were made ahead of the Supreme Court’s scheduled hearing on a case concerning President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which raises vital questions regarding the jurisdictional reach of such injunctions. You can read more about this hearing here.
There exists a tension between two extremes, VanDyke observed: one where the Supreme Court addresses these injunctions, and another where the executive branch chooses to disregard judicial decisions. In his view, neither is optimal, suggesting that a middle path should be explored.
The panel discussion, which included prominent legal figures, highlighted divergent views on handling nationwide injunctions. Jesse Panuccio, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, expressed skepticism about the courts’ ability to address this issue optimally and advocated for Congressional involvement to recalibrate judicial authority. Similarly, Luke McCloud, a partner at Williams & Connolly, suggested alternative solutions such as randomizing judicial panels to mitigate forum shopping, but like Panuccio, regarded Congressional intervention as crucial.
VanDyke’s perspective is informed by previous statements where he critiqued the sweeping powers of trial courts to unilaterally influence national policies. He described this as a “problematic” and “unhealthy condition” for the governance framework. The full text of VanDyke’s remarks and the context of this debate can be accessed here.