Old Laws

How to stop activist judges:

The writ of prohibition, originating in English common law, was popularly used to resolve jurisdictional court disputes. If a court improperly exercised jurisdiction over an ecclesiastical matter, for instance, the King’s Bench could issue a writ of prohibition to divest it of authority. In the United States, this writ was initially rare but gained broader applicability with the creation of modern circuit courts of appeal, allowing appellate courts to act in aid of their jurisdiction. According to one appellate court, to invoke the writ, there needs to be a clear instance of a court violating its jurisdiction without any other available way to challenge its actions — precisely the situation Trump faces. In many of these lawsuits against the administration, the district court simply lacks jurisdiction. For example, if a plaintiff seeks to force USAID to pay out a contract, that case would fall under the jurisdiction of the CFC, not a federal district court. The same principle applies to personnel actions, which should be heard before the MSPB rather than in district courts. If the district court grants a temporary restraining order in both cases, the government effectively has no way to appeal. Trump, therefore, has a right to seek a writ of prohibition to prevent district courts from exceeding their jurisdiction when given no adequate appellate remedy. That’s exactly why the writ exists.

Judges need to be reminded of their limits...