University of Pennsylvania law professor and former Obama White House lawyer, Kate Shaw, expertly refuted Senator Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) claims about nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. Shaw challenged Hawley's assertion that the high number of injunctions against Trump was anomalous, suggesting his administration's actions may have been more legally questionable. This exchange highlights the ongoing debate surrounding judicial oversight of presidential executive orders and the frequency of nationwide injunctions under different administrations
Senator Josh Hawley's claim about nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration faced sharp criticism from law professor Kate Shaw. Hawley cited an Axios graph showing 64 injunctions against Trump in his first term, exceeding those against Obama and Biden. Shaw countered that this could be attributed to the Trump administration's "lawless activity," sparking a heated exchange during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. The debate highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding nationwide injunctions and the politicization of the judiciary
Senator Hawley questioned a graph showing a surge in injunctions against the Trump administration, prompting a sharp rebuke from law professor Kate Shaw. Shaw suggested the increased number of nationwide injunctions—significantly exceeding those against Obama and Biden—could be attributed to the Trump administration's unprecedented level of legally questionable actions. This exchange highlights the ongoing debate surrounding judicial oversight of presidential power and the partisan implications of nationwide injunctions
Law professor Kate Shaw expertly countered Senator Josh Hawley's criticism of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Shaw argued that the high number of injunctions plausibly reflects President Trump's engagement in more unlawful activities compared to previous administrations, a possibility Hawley should acknowledge. This exchange highlights the ongoing debate surrounding judicial oversight of executive power and the differing impacts on presidential administrations
Congressional Research Service data reveals at least 25 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration between the start of his second term and late April. This nears the combined total of nationwide injunctions issued against both Obama and Biden administrations, highlighting a significant disparity in legal challenges faced by different presidencies
Nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration nearly equaled the combined total against both Obama and Biden administrations, according to Harvard Law Review data. This highlights a significant disparity in the number of court rulings halting presidential policies
Legal challenges to Trump administration executive orders, including immigration and trade policies, intensified during his presidency, sparking debate over the frequency of nationwide injunctions against his policies compared to previous administrations
During his first term, President Trump and his allies repeatedly attacked judges and courts issuing rulings against the administration's policies, sparking debate over judicial overreach and partisan bias in the federal judiciary
Senator Hawley's claim that Democratic-appointed judges favor issuing injunctions against the Trump administration sparks debate. Analysis of nationwide injunctions against the Trump, Obama, and Biden administrations reveals a complex pattern, prompting questions about the frequency and potential causes of these legal challenges. The data, showing a higher number of injunctions against the Trump administration, is challenged by legal experts who point to the administration's policies as a possible factor
Harvard Law Review data reveals a majority of injunctions against the Trump administration during his first term came from judges appointed by the opposing party. However, Professor Kate Shaw highlighted that GOP-appointed judges also issued such rulings against the Biden administration, refuting Senator Hawley's claims of partisan bias in judicial decisions
Senator Hawley's hypocrisy on nationwide injunctions exposed: He argued against them under Democratic presidents but deemed them "absolutely fine" under President Trump, highlighting a partisan double standard in judicial rulings against presidential administrations
For 20 years, HuffPost has delivered fearless truth-telling journalism. Support our mission and help us continue uncovering crucial stories for the next 20 years. Your contribution keeps independent journalism alive
Unbiased, fact-based journalism: Holding power accountable. We deliver the truth, so you can make informed decisions
Your support fuels our vital journalism. We're incredibly grateful for your past contributions, which strengthened our newsroom during challenging times. Now, more than ever, we need your continued support to keep delivering in-depth reporting and analysis on critical issues like the legal battles surrounding presidential executive orders. Please join us again
Unbiased, fact-based journalism: Holding power accountable. We deliver the news everyone deserves, providing in-depth analysis and reporting you can trust
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can’t do this without you.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
“How can our system of law survive on those principles, professor?” Hawley asked.
“I think a system in which there are no constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,” Shaw replied.
Source: Original Article