Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

Sen. Josh Hawley SLAMS local district court judges issuing national injunctions on the Trump admin, calls for SCOTUS or Congress to intervene:

"These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, 'I'm not just going to issue an order that says what the executive… https://t.co/e1lzI3cSP5 pic.twitter.com/0KzcpkkxnW

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 19, 2025

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. Trump. Talbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has blocked Robert Roberson, a man given a death sentence based on the discredited “shaken baby syndrome,” from testifying at the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.

Roberson’s execution date was set for October 17, but the Texas Supreme Court granted a stay of execution so he could testify, according to the Austin Chronicle. Roberson was scheduled to testify on December 20, but Paxton filed a motion on the 19th, telling prison officials to ignore a subpoena issued by the House committee, declaring it invalid.

Roberson was due to testify about the state’s “junk science law.” That law is supposed to provide new trials when a person is convicted based on flawed forensic evidence, according to the Texas Tribune. However, critics allege the law rarely actually allows new trials, the Chronicle reports. The committee was supposed to hear Roberson’s story to help determine if the law is ineffective.

READ MORE: Texas AG Ken Paxton Threatens Democrat-Leaning Counties Not To Mail Out Voter Registration Forms

Roberson was convicted in 2003 of capital murder following the death of his 2-year-old daughter, according to Newsweek. At the time, a doctor said the girl had died from “shaken baby syndrome,” defined as head trauma due to shaking. Shaken baby syndrome has been controversial since it was first coined. Biomechanics scientists say that shaking a baby can’t create a force strong enough to cause the type of trauma seen in these sorts of cases, according to the New Jersey Monitor. It’s often used as a catchall type diagnosis, when a baby dies but has no other signs of abuse.

In Roberson’s case, the child had been chronically ill, Newsweek reported. She had a fever and respiratory issues, which likely caused her death.

Other cases based on shaken baby syndrome have been overturned. This includes a 2000 case in Dallas, where Andrew Wayne Roark was initially sentenced to 35 years in prison in the death of his girlfriend’s 13-month-old. The Texas Supreme Court overturned Roark’s conviction this year about a week before Roberson was due to be executed, according to KERA-FM.

Despite this, Texas officials have declined to address Roberson’s case. Though Gov. Greg Abbott pardoned four people this week, Roberson was not one of them, according to the Houston Chronicle. In October, Paxton called attempts to delay Roberson’s execution “eleventh-hour, one-sided, extrajudicial stunts that attempt to obscure the facts and rewrite his past,” according to the Tribune. At the time, Abbott agreed, saying the House had “stepped out of line” in its attempts to delay execution so Roberson could testify.

Last year, Paxton was impeached by the state House on 20 separate articles of impeachment. The Texas Senate, which skews Republican 19 to 12, voted to acquit. The charges mostly centered around allegations Paxton used his position to help a campaign donor under investigation by the FBI for fraud.

A new date for Roberson’s execution has not been set.

Image via Shutterstock

Ohio Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, said Monday that if he were in former Vice President Mike Pence’s place, he would not have certified the election on January 6, 2021.

Speaking as part of a panel on the All-In Podcast, Vance told cohost Jason Calacanis the issue wasn’t necessarily Pence deciding not to “overturn the election results,” but rather that “Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some problems.”‘

Calacanis replied by asking Vance directly if he would have certified the election.

READ MORE: ‘BadgerPundit’: Top Trump Attorney in Fake Electors Plot Hid Secret Twitter Account

“I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania,” Vance said. “Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes.”

Calacanis asked Vance again if he’d have certified the election, and Vance appears to back the plan to send fake electors to cause confusion in the certification process.

“I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we have. That’s what I would have done,” Vance said. “The important part is we would have had a big debate. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we would, at least, have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast.”

Democrats heavily criticized Vance’s statement.

“Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate because he knows that Vance will do what his last vice president wouldn’t—undermine our democracy and help him try to overturn election results. Now, Vance is making it clear: instead of certifying the 2020 election, Vance ‘would have asked the states’ to send slates of fake electors and throw our election into chaos to help Trump stay in power. Vance is clearly laying out the stakes of this election for our democracy and our basic freedoms, and showing voters that if given the chance, he’ll try to replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump,” Alex Floyd, the rapid response director for the DNC, said in a statement.

Vance’s claims of there being illegal ballots in Pennsylvania appears to be based on a claim from former President Donald Trump in 2022. Trump said that a then-recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that ballots sent in undated envelopes will not be counted in that year’s election meant that the 2020 election was “rigged, but they’ll let that result stand.”

The Associated Press debunked Trump’s claim, reporting that not only did Trump misrepresent the court’s ruling, but even if his claim was accurate, throwing out these ballots would not have mattered in the election.