Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has petitioned Supreme Court justices to consider limiting the power of lower courts to block federal policies and laws, Vox reported. In his piece, senior correspondent Ian Millhiser warns that President-elect Donald Trump would be the "biggest immediate beneficiary."
As Millhiser noted, the outcome of the Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop case could "be a constitutional earthquake" if the court heeds the urgings of its high court's top litigator. The case centers around a "federal law requiring many businesses to disclose their owners to the federal government" that was struck down by a lower court.
Besides supposedly "dubious reasoning" to do so, the implications of blocking lower courts from such actions would "limit judges’ ability to halt Trump administration policies, even if those policies are illegal," the author of the piece "Biden’s DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to do a huge favor for Donald Trump" claimed. Millhiser didn't stop there with the doom and gloom predictions.
"If the Supreme Court were to uphold this judge’s reasoning, that would be a constitutional earthquake, as the trial judge’s opinion attacks Congress’s broad power to regulate businesses and the economy. That outcome is probably unlikely, however, because the trial judge’s opinion is poorly argued," Millhiser noted.
The case could initiate a pivotal decision because "[Judge] Amos Mazzant, issued a 'nationwide injunction' preventing the federal government from enforcing the ownership-reporting law against anyone at all" in the lower court decision. "Now the Court might limit the power of low-ranking federal judges like Mazzant to issue decisions that make rules for the nation as a whole," Millhiser warned.
The question is whether the power to stop any federal policy or law should lie in the hands of a single judge. As the Vox author noted, more than 1,000 judges currently sit on the federal bench.
"If nationwide injunctions are allowed, any one of these district judges could potentially halt any federal law, even if every other judge in the country disagrees with them," Millhiser warned. The issue also becomes particularly problematic in places like Texas, where Mazzant serves, which allows plaintiffs the right to choose their judge.
"During the Biden administration, Republicans often selected highly partisan judges to hear challenges to liberal federal policies — and those judges frequently rewarded this behavior by issuing nationwide injunctions," Millhiser said. He added that even if those injunctions are ultimately overturned on appeal, it can be months before that happens.
With Trump about to take over the White House, "the Court’s decision in Top Cop Shop could be one of the most significant cases of the next several years, as it could drastically increase Trump’s ability to implement policies that federal courts determine to be unlawful," Millhiser believes. He warns that the consequences are far-reaching.
The left-leaning publication is worried that Trump will get his way more often if the court decides as Prelogar is urging. The underlying facts of the case are "very silly, as the federal law at issue in this case is obviously constitutional," the author asserts.
"Top Cop Shop involves the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which Congress enacted in the waning days of the first Trump administration as part of a broader national defense bill." The intent was to stop bad actors from concealing their interest in businesses to "'facilitate illicit activity' such as money laundering, funding terrorism, and various forms of fraud."
Mazzant ruled CTA was "unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority to 'regulate commerce … among the several states," but the author disagrees with the reasoning, especially if it means setting a strong precedent. Moreover, Millhiser is worried that the conservative-majority Supreme Court will be persuaded to limit the powers of lower courts at this time.
"The Republican Supreme Court did very little to limit nationwide injunctions while a Democratic administration was the target of those injunctions. But, now that a Republican president is about to take over, it’s possible that this Court will finally address a problem that both political parties agree is serious," Millhiser claimed.
These legal questions come up all of the time, but leftists only care about possible loopholes when their politicians are not the ones in power. The Founding Fathers knew this. Thus, the checks and balances built into the U.S. government allow many avenues for fairness, including this one, which Trump will surely cheer on.
