Narrowing Federal District Court Jurisdiction To Curb Lawfare

The federal district courts, increasingly weaponized by activist judges, have become epicenters of lawfare—strategic lawsuits designed to obstruct the policy agenda of President Donald Trump’s second term. These courts issue sweeping rulings, often based on flimsy legal grounds, that delay or derail executive actions on immigration, deregulation, and election integrity.Congress, endowed with clear constitutional authority, must act to narrow the jurisdiction of these courts to curb their abuse. By leveraging Article III, historical precedent, and case law, Congress can rein in judicial overreach, as exemplified by recent rulings like those involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Venezuelan deportations. Such reforms would protect the Trump administration’s mandate from ideologically driven litigation orchestrated by activist law firms and organizations.Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish and regulate “inferior Courts,” giving it broad discretion over their jurisdiction. Section 2, Clause 2 allows Congress to make “Exceptions” and “Regulations” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, a principle extending to lower courts. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ex parte McCardle (1868), upholding Congress’s ability to strip jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals, stating that “the power to make exceptions…is given by express words.” This precedent confirms Congress’s authority to limit district court jurisdiction without breaching Separation of Powers.Historically, Congress has tailored judicial scope. The Judiciary Act of 1789 confined district courts to admiralty and minor criminal matters, a far cry from today’s activist courts issuing nationwide injunctions. In 1875, Congress expanded federal question jurisdiction (28 USC § 1331), but it can just as easily contract it. By invoking Article III, Congress can restrict district courts from hearing cases that exploit vague statutory or constitutional claims to target Trump’s agenda, restoring judicial restraint.Lawfare has surged, with plaintiffs forum-shopping for sympathetic judges to block Trump’s policies. These cases often hinge on expansive readings of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or dubious constitutional claims. For instance, in Texas v. United States (2015), a single district judge halted Obama’s DAPA program, setting a precedent for nationwide injunctions now weaponized against Trump. While occasionally justified, these injunctions are abused by activist judges, often appointed for ideological alignment, transforming courts into political battlegrounds.Two recent cases illustrate this scourge. In Abrego Garcia v. United States (2025), US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant initially reported as erroneously deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison despite a 2019 withholding-of-removal order. The Supreme Court upheld Xinis’s order unanimously, requiring the administration to act, though it sought clarification on “effectuating” the return due to foreign policy concerns.Garcia’s legal team, led by Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center, alongside advocacy from CASA, framed the deportation as a due process violation even though Abrego Garcia received due process in an immigration court in the denial of his asylum application. Sandoval-Moshenberg leveraged Xinis’s court to challenge Trump’s immigration crackdown. This ruling, while mistakenly correcting an initially admitted error, exemplifies how district courts can issue intrusive orders that complicate executive action, fueled by activist law.Similarly, in a Texas federal court, Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a temporary injunction in April 2025 halting the deportation of three Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia and due process concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigrant Justice Center, with attorneys like Lee Gelernt, spearheaded this challenge, arguing the administration’s “invasion” narrative at the border lacked legal grounding. This case underscores how district courts, prompted by well-funded advocacy groups, issue broad injunctions to thwart Trump’s deportation policies, often on speculative grounds.But Congress can enact targeted reforms to neutralize lawfare.First, it should amend 28 USC § 1331 to limit federal question jurisdiction, excluding cases challenging executive actions unless plaintiffs show direct, concrete injury. The Supreme Court’s standing doctrine in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) supports this, requiring “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized.” Codifying stricter standing rules would block groups like the ACLU or CASA from filing suits based on ideological opposition, as seen in the Venezuelan deportation ...