Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is making it clear: the era of judicial overreach must come to an end. Following a series of federal court rulings that have obstructed President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport criminal migrants, Grassley has vowed to take action.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Grassley voiced strong support for Trump’s directive enforcing the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to provide financial guarantees. This measure is designed to curb frivolous lawsuits and ensure that taxpayers are compensated when courts later determine that injunctions were wrongly issued.
Grassley highlighted a deeply troubling pattern:
- A 2023 Harvard Law Review study found that between 2001 and 2023, 96 nationwide injunctions were issued.
- A staggering 64 of those—two-thirds—targeted Trump during his first four years in office.
- Of those 64 injunctions, 54 were issued as preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders—meaning they were imposed without full legal proceedings.
- The vast majority of these rulings came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
This isn’t just legal obstruction—it’s a deliberate effort to undermine the authority of an elected president.
A prime example is Judge James E. Boasberg, an Obama appointee, who issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal alien gang members. These individuals—linked to Tren de Aragua and MS-13, both designated terrorist organizations—had already begun deportation proceedings when the judge intervened.
The left-wing ACLU and Soros-backed Democracy Forward sued the Trump administration on behalf of five alleged gang members to stop the deportations, even as nearly 300 criminals were already in transit to El Salvador. In response, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) announced plans to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Boasberg, arguing that the judge had grossly exceeded his authority.
Grassley didn’t mince words.
“Over the last few months, I have watched with concern as individual district judges have issued sweeping injunctions that reach far beyond the case or controversy before them,” he wrote. “The rule of law matters. Over the last decade, we have seen chaos unfold when individual district judges determine policy for the whole country.”
This is more than a legal dispute—it’s a battle for executive authority and national security. The courts were never intended to function as de facto policymakers, yet activist judges have repeatedly used nationwide injunctions to obstruct Trump’s policies.
