Cruz on the Judges Blocking Trump: 'This Is the Second Phase of Lawfare' — 'Why Don't You File Them in Red Districts?' (April 2, 2025)

Sen. Ted Cruz told a Senate hearing that President Donald Trump’s opponents had moved on to a new front: radical judges. “Understand this is the second phase of lawfare,” Cruz said at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on universal injunctions on April 2, 2025, Fox News reported [1].

“Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re-electing him have failed, they’re going and seeking out individual radical judges,” the Texas Republican said [1].

The video above shows Cruz at the hearing, “Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions.” Quotes are from Fox News, Sen. Josh Hawley’s office, the Clerk of the House and the Supreme Court [1][2][3][4][5].

”Why Don’t You File Them in Red Districts?”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., answered that the injunctions came because Trump was “violating the Constitution.” As she began to ask about judges Trump had appointed, Cruz cut in [1].

“Why don’t you file them in red districts?” Cruz asked. “Why are the Democrat attorneys general seeking out left-wing, blue swing districts?” [1]

Cruz also faulted Democrats for not doing enough to denounce threats against conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years, Fox News reported [1].

A Republican witness, former acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, said ending judge shopping alone would not fix the problem. “I think the incentive for forum shopping is that you think you can get a judge who can be a ruler for the whole nation. So, fix the problem of judges overreaching,” he said [1].

”One Rule Across the Board”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., brought the numbers. Obama faced 12 nationwide injunctions and Biden 14, compared with 64 in Trump’s first term alone, and Trump had faced at least 15 in his second term already, Hawley’s office said [2].

“It shouldn’t be one rule for Democrats, one rule for Republicans – let’s make it one rule across the board that no matter who appoints you, a judge can only bind parties that are before her or him, that there are no nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said [2].

“Let’s make that the standard and return these courts to the proper function of our constitutional system,” he said [2].

Hawley had introduced a bill to ban nationwide injunctions by district courts. He also said partisan judges had turned to temporary restraining orders, which cannot be appealed right away because they are short-term, his office said [2].

”Created Out of Whole Cloth”

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said judges were overstepping their role. “When Congress makes a law, the federal judges are supposed to follow it. When the president exercises his power under Article II, judges are supposed to follow it, so long as it’s lawful,” Kennedy said, Fox News reported. “They can’t just overturn it because they don’t agree with it, and that’s what a lot of these federal judges are doing.” [3]

“And a universal injunction was created out of whole cloth. There’s no statutory basis for a universal injunction,” he said [3].

Kennedy noted there were only 27 such injunctions from John F. Kennedy’s presidency through the year 2000, and he said some judges seem to want to “rewrite the Constitution every other Thursday, to advance some social or economic agenda that they can’t get by the voters: But the law is the law.” [3]

He had a warning for judicial nominees. “All the nominees in front of us are going to be asked about universal injunctions, I can tell you. And if they try to dodge and bob and weave and run like a hound on the treeline, when it’s my turn to question them I’m not going to let them,” Kennedy said [3].

”They Should Run for Office”

“Unfortunately, we have radical left judges who are allowing their personal beliefs to supersede the will of 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. “If a judge wants to make political decisions, they should run for office.” [3]

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said: “[A] single federal judge can essentially stop a popularly elected president dead in his tracks by a temporary restraining order, which doesn’t just deal with the parties in front of the judge, but literally the whole nation.” [3]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, whose Judicial Relief Clarification Act would end the practice, has called such injunctions “an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power,” Fox News reported [3].

By the Numbers

64: nationwide injunctions against Trump in his first term, per Hawley’s office [2].
12 and 14: nationwide injunctions against Obama and Biden, per Hawley’s office [2].
At least 15: against Trump in his second term by April 2025, per Hawley’s office [2].
27: universal injunctions from JFK through 2000, per Kennedy [3].
219-213: the House vote for the No Rogue Rulings Act [4].
6-3: the Supreme Court’s vote in Trump v. CASA [5].

What Happened Next

The House voted to rein in district judges. On April 9, 2025, the House passed H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, 219 to 213. Republicans voted 219 to 1 for it, and all 212 Democrats who voted opposed it [4].

The Supreme Court reined them in. On June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a 6-3 majority that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” [5]

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation,” the opinion says [5].

“JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett wrote [5].

For Trump on the birthright citizenship case before the Court ruled, see HYGO News’ page on April 17, 2025. For Trump and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele on the Abrego Garcia case, see the page on April 14, 2025.