Q: What are “universal injunctions?”

A: An injunction is a court order requiring someone to do or stop doing a specific action. Temporary restraining orders (TRO) are similar to injunctions but are short term, unappealable orders from the court directing someone to take or not take some action until the court can review more fully. Historically, injunctions and TROs were limited to the parties before the court. But in recent years, we’ve seen an eruption of court orders that apply far beyond the parties directly before the court — sometimes even the entire country. These universal injunctions, commonly referred to as “nationwide” injunctions, are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power because they exceed Article III’s limitation whereby the judiciary may only resolve “cases” or “controversies” before the court.

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has hit Washington like a hurricane. He’s keeping promises he made during the election that won a historic, decisive comeback victory. And yet, the lower courts are undermining the president’s work on behalf of the American people: the surge of universal injunctions are unilaterally derailing public policies being implemented by the executive branch.

Universal injunctions have been used disproportionately to stop President Trump’s agenda, in both his first and second terms. Over two-thirds of all universal injunctions issued over the past 25 years were levied against the first Trump administration. And in the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, the lower courts have issued more universal injunctions than President Biden faced in four years. Among the numerous justices who have voiced concern, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has voiced disapproval of this precedent-breaking legal phenomenon, whereby individual district court judges are blocking federal government policies nationwide. It sidesteps the process of representative government by short-circuiting the implementation of policies made by elected leaders. Instead, it emboldens unelected judges who are sitting on the federal bench with lifetime appointments to make policy. Judges aren’t policymakers — that’s Congress’ job. And it’s the president’s job to execute laws. President Trump is carrying out the promises he made on the campaign trail. His opponents are misusing the lower courts to blunt the constitutional authority vested in the president.

Q: Does Congress have the authority to rein in the lower courts?

A: The founders enshrined the separation of powers in the Constitution and ensured one branch would not supersede the authority of the others by establishing our system of checks and balances. For example, Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution ordains Congress as the sole creator and organizer of the lower courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the three-tiered hierarchy of the federal judiciary. So, the answer is yes, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to require the federal judiciary to stay in its constitutional lane.

The recent spate of universal injunctions tells me things have gotten out of whack. The orders being handed down from district court judges undermine the authority of the executive branch and overstep the authority of the lower courts. These rapid decisions also place undue stress on the judicial system by inserting political calculation into the selection of the judges and the resolution of legal disputes. Put more simply, litigants are judge-shopping and forum-shopping for a particular outcome. The judicial process is supposed to involve careful and deliberative review. Instead, it’s being used as an expedited means to a political end. Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with settling “cases” and “controversies.” Judges are meant to only resolve the dispute before them. So it’s imperative to rein in this unconstitutional overreach once and for all. The Supreme Court could fix this problem. If it won’t, Congress must.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m urging lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to join me to put a check on this breach of authority. I convened a hearing to examine the bipartisan problem of universal injunctions and legislative solutions to fix it. After all, both Republicans and Democrats have cheered or criticized the policy implications from universal injunctions, including this senator. Now, we should all band together to fix the problem.

I introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act to restore the constitutional role of lower courts by restraining their ability to issue universal injunctions. My bill would make temporary restraining orders against the government immediately appealable. The appellate process guarantees our judicial system retains its deliberative nature. What’s more, it would help prevent rash, biased decisions handed down in the heat of the political moment. It’s time to rein in unchecked authority from the lower courts that damages the separation of powers and undermines public confidence in the courts.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican, represents Iowa.