About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2 J.L. & Civ. Governance Tex. A&M 1 (2025-2026)

handle is hein.journals/jrnlwcv2 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTORING JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: THE CASE FOR S.1090 AND ITS MULTI-JUDGE REVIEW AS A SOLUTION TO UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS Michael S. Lee* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ . 1 2. HISTORY OF UNIVERSAL INJUNCTIONS ............................................... 3 3. THE PROBLEM .............................................................................. 6 3.1. Why Trump v. CASA Did Not Solve the Problem.......................... 8 4. THE SOLUTION .......................................................................... 11 4.1. S.1090-The Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act ................ 12 4.2. The Benefits of a Three-Judge Panel........................................... 13 5. C ONCLUSION ............................................................................. 17 1. INTRODUCTION Since the turn of the century, the coequal status of the Executive and Judiciary has come under attack. With the rise of universal injunctions,1 the executive branch's authority to act swiftly and strongly has been significantly diminished by an increasingly interventionist judicial branch. Now it is cer- tain that [a] feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the govern- ment,2 and our Founders would be dismayed to know the gavel of the jurist is contributing to a swift decline into weakened government. Today, individ- ual district court judges across the country are vying to be the one to strike the decisive blow against President Trump's policies. However, these judges have failed to consider the far-reaching implications of their unilateral intru- sions into the executive branch. * The senior U.S. Senator for the State of Utah and member of the U.S. Senate Commit- tee on the Judiciary. 1 Defined as district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540, 2548 (2025). 2 THE FEDERALIST No. 70, at 471 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961). 1