District judge issues nationwide injunction blocking Trump rule requiring health insurance for new immigrants

Once again, a U.S. district judge has overstepped and issued a nationwide injunction halting the implementation of a policy proclamation by President Donald Trump’s administration.

In this case, a federal judge in Oregon issued a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking a new rule that would have required all immigrants seeking visas to enter the U.S. to first show that they had some measure of health insurance or the financial means to cover any healthcare-related costs, either of their own or via a sponsor, Fox News reports.

Notably, that new rule, announced in October, would only apply to immigrants still living abroad and was not applicable to current visa holders already in the U.S., nor would it apply to lawful permanent residents, asylum-seekers, refugees, or children.

Blocking Trump’s rule

The Oregonian reported that U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon — appointed by President Barack Obama — heard oral arguments in his Portland, Oregon court on Friday about whether to enjoin the new rule from being implemented while the legal challenges to it moved through the court system. The rule had already been temporarily blocked on Nov. 2, but that injunction was set to expire by the end of the month, and the judge ruled on Tuesday to extend the injunction nationwide.

The lawsuit in the “public charge” case had been filed by a number of U.S. citizens who were attempting to sponsor noncitizen relatives’ entry into the U.S. and was supported by a number of immigrant rights groups as well as 21 states and the District of Columbia.

The main argument of the plaintiffs was that the Trump administration was attempting to rewrite immigration law without the consent of Congress and that the rule would actually create more of a burden on the healthcare system instead of lessening it.

Justice Department lawyers had argued that the intent of the rule had been to reduce the burden on the system imposed by uninsured immigrants and cited the president’s broad authority in regulating the U.S. immigration system, as had been confirmed by the courts in the 2018 “travel ban” case.

A growing problem

Attorney General Bill Barr, in his heralded speech to the Federalist Society on Nov. 15 about the “Resistance” to President Trump and the executive branch, made mention of the growing problem of nationwide injunctions issued by district courts that effectively blocked rules and laws from being implemented.

He noted at that time that Trump had already had 40 such injunctions issued against him — as compared to two against Obama in his first two years — saying: “It is no exaggeration to say that virtually every major policy of the Trump [a]dministration has been subjected to immediate freezing by the lower courts. No other [p]resident has been subjected to such sustained efforts to debilitate his policy agenda.”

This recent injunction is merely the latest example of how the left, seeking to block Trump and his agenda at every turn, have made use of liberal activist judges who have no qualms about overstepping their jurisdictional bounds or the parameters of a particular case to impose their own partisan will across the nation over that of the duly-elected president.

This nonsense has to stop, and hopefully, the Supreme Court will eventually see fit to weigh in on the matter and, at the very least, set some limits on how and when nationwide injunctions will be deemed as acceptable jurisprudence in the future.

Share on facebook
Share to Facebook
[ci-popup]

Latest News