The National Injunction Crisis, Brought To You By the Democrats

Hey everybody, we are in the midst of a nationwide injunction crisis. What do we do about it? Do we ignore the orders? Do we impeach the judges? We go through all of it with Ben Whitegarten and I comment on this extensively.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast and become a member today.
Members.charliekirk.com. That is members.charliekirk.com.
Get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. That is tp dot com.
Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives. And we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show,

a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. We have a serious problem everybody.

There is a major issue happening that could significantly slow down President Trump's mandate. I don't like using the C word unnecessarily, but we are living in a crisis.
We are now living in a crisis that is a constitutional crisis. It is a crisis of the nationwide injunction.
America has almost 700 district court judges. They are the lowest level of the federal judiciary.
So you got 700 people in black robes. Every one of them sits in one of 994 judicial districts covering a single state or even a small part of a state.
Normally, the jurisdiction of these judges is supposed to cover the area of their district.

But a nationwide injunction is when one of these judges issues an order and commands that it be implemented all across the country. Now, these used to be exceedingly rare.
These always used to be used maybe a couple times for an entire presidency. For example, when George W.
Bush was president for eight years, he was only hit with nationwide injunctions six times. Obama, president for eight years, was hit with 12 nationwide injunctions.
The first Trump administration, 64 times. Now, that's more than half of all the injunctions since the 1960s.
Now, allow me to explain this to a fourth grader because we got some very young listeners on this program. A nationwide injunction is like a rule.
Imagine if one kid in a class told the teacher that a new rule was unfair and the teacher decided to stop using that rule for everyone in the whole school indefinitely, not just for that one kid. That is the best way that I could explain a nationwide injunction.
It stops the function, the action and the order and the power of the president of the United States. President Trump has had more nationwide injunctions in the past two months than Joe Biden had in his entire term.
Let me say that again. President Trump has had more nationwide injunctions in the past two months than Joe Biden had in his entire presidency.
60 days, not even, four years. These nationwide injunctions have been to prevent, for example, the defunding of USAID.
Perfectly constitutional for President Trump to do that. You must spend the money.
You must give condoms to people of Gaza. You must fund Sesame Street in Iraq.
These judges have moved to prevent the deportation of gang members from Venezuela. Just last night, a judge said the military can't block transgender people from joining the military.
So President Trump is no longer in charge of the armed forces. President Trump is no longer in charge of movements of who is in the military.
What they are doing is they are slowly enveloping and eating and marching within the federal government and on the presidency. Many of these orders are flagrantly illegal.
For example, it is well established that the military can decide who it enlists because that rests in a single person, the commander in chief. So if transgender people were banned before Obama and they were banned in Trump's first term, he obviously can do it.
Doesn't matter. The judge comes in and says it's not allowed.
This is cut 158 up on screen. This is the order.
District court judge orders the U.S. military to continue enlisting mentally delusional transgender people, justifying their decision and quoting the musical Hamilton.

That's where we're at.

Literally quoting the musical Hamilton.

This is in the footnotes of a federal judge.

These are the people that are running your government right now.

They're quoting a musical, not a joke. Footnote five.
Women were included in the sequel when passage of the 19th Amendment granted them the right to vote. See, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton, a musical.
So now that we are trying to protect our military from transgender people from coming in and potentially causing discord, chaos and confusion.

The federal judge.

That is saying, no, you can't do that, is using a musical as their legal justification.

You voted for President Trump, but an oligarchy is standing in the way, a legal oligarchy, to prevent President Trump's rightful constitutional authority. Over the last 100 years, power has been concentrated in two places.
It has been concentrated in the unelected bureaucracy and the unelected judiciary, the administrative state and the black robe regimen of legal oligarchs that thwart the will of the American people. This is what the downfall of a republic looks like.
It is a black robe coup. So what is the plan? Well, there's many options that can be pursued.
The first of which is you can pursue impeachment. It's probably not a good idea.
First of all, you don't have the votes. Second of all, it will only probably embolden other judges to act even more crazily.
Probably not a good idea. In many cases, these judges don't ever plan for their orders to hold up at a higher level.
Their plan is, this is the key, to block and to hinder and to delay. If it takes a year or two years to get the case through the Supreme Court, that's two wasted years for this administration that they hate.
They're trying to run out the clock. Meanwhile, they're trying to send their shock troops to go burn more Teslas.
To go swat more conservative influencers and radio hosts. To go send more of their shock troops into the streets.
These judges are trying to buy time for the paramilitary arm of the Democrat Party to create more chaos in the streets. To slow down President Trump's mandate given to him by the American people.
This is an orchestrated hit at the core of our republic. If it takes a

year or even two years, some of these cases, by the way, could take three to four years now

to work through the courts. That's what a nationwide injunction does.
It stops everything.

And by the way, did you notice that conservative judges refuse to do this very much under Joe

Biden? Because we actually have respect for the Constitution. We believe in Article two powers.
You see, while we're being principled, the Democrats, they're not principled. They're power hungry and they know that they don't have power right now.
So they're using the last thing at their disposal. The unelected black robe regime.
This is all about slowing down President Trump to slow down the inevitable. This is a crisis, a crisis of a nationwide injunction.
The Democrat Party's approval rating is the lowest it has ever been of any political party since the advent of polling. Let's get that

Steve Kornacki clip. This is all they have left.
Is a small handful of hyper elite, college educated, academic, lawyerly, black robe, wearing smug oligarchs, stopping your ability to have a voice in your government. Hey, Charlie Kirk here.
Ever see your dog slowing down or having health issues and wonder what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add Rough Greens to your dog's food for 90 days and you'll see changes that will amaze you, guaranteed. Invented by naturopathic Dr.
Dennis Black, Rough Greens wants to invite you and give your pup the rough greens 90 day challenge in the first 30 days you'll see shinier coats and increased energy by day 60 your dog will have a stronger immune system less shedding and improved joint function all due to live nutrients you've added to their diet and at 90 days better digestion reduced inflammation heart health, and you might even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch a free jumpstart trial bag for your dog today.
Go to ruffgreens.com. Just use promo code Charlie.
That is roughgreens.com, promo code Charlie, and just cover shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food.
To improve your dog's health, just add a scoop of rough rough greens that is ruffgreens.com when we look to other countries and we wonder why is it that even though their people want something and they don't get it it's typically because of an out-of-control judiciary two countries in particular israel and brazil have been experiencing this, where they have this philosopher king infrastructure of black robe wearing judges that have power to usurp that of the people, to overturn what the sovereign want. And they really ask the question, who is the sovereign in America?

Is it the people? And for a while we've been told it's the people, but it's very clear that we are actually on a mission to reclaim the promise of the framers of this great country. That is what this is all about.
So what do we do about this? Honestly, we're trying to figure that out. This is a very difficult situation.
The key is not to rush in anything. I'll be honest.
My instinct is defy it. But sometimes your instinct is not always right.
Sometimes that is your emotion. So we're going to kind of take a step back.
And if we end up with that conclusion, then we will use our reason and our logos to get there. So we've got to take a step back.
You can't allow your emotions and your passions to lead you towards something this consequential. Because this has never happened before in American history.
Can you write that down? Mail it to yourself. Deliver it.
Text it to a friend. Never happened before.
George W. Bush had six injunctions.
Donald Trump has. How many total injunctions does President Trump have right now? I think it's well over 100.
There are a lot of good ideas out there right now. For example, we could create an expedited appeals process for nationwide injunctions.
So they go to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. We could also make it so that lawsuits seeking nationwide injunctions are assigned to random judges or a random panel of judges.
Right now, political activists will pick the friendliest judge they can anywhere in the country, and they judge shop and venue shop. Almost any fix like this would require getting through Congress, which, as you know, Congress hasn't done anything.
What are they doing? They passed one bill, the Lake and Riley Act and a CR. They got to start producing.
Pressure's on you guys. President Trump is here.
He's getting enjoined. He's solving a war.

He's running the Kennedy Center. He's doing strikes on hooties.
Meanwhile, you got to get your act together, Congress. Enough.
Enough yammering and cattle walling. We got to start seeing some real legislation here.
Almost any fix that would require getting Congress to pass a new bill we have to consider justI don't even want to get into this. John Foon and Mike Johnson, forget it.
Nothing's going to happen. So now we have to consider the highest of all the options, and let's talk about it.
I'm not even saying it's a good idea. I'm not endorsing it, but it must be entertained to ignore some of these orders.
To be clear, we have not done that yet. The Trump administration has bent over backwards not to do that.
These courts have engaged in absurd behavior, and President Trump has avoided everything possible to ignore a judge's order. That's why we've had all the drama with the Trendy Aragua flights.
They were flown out as quickly as possible so that the planes would be over international waters before a judge could invent a fake justification to demand that we must keep foreign gang murderers in the United States. But what if stunts like this aren't enough? Well, for now, the plan is to appeal things up the chain.
The ball is in the Supreme Court right now. Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out that this tyranny of nationwide injunctions is brand new.
It didn't exist 70 years ago. It didn't exist 20 years ago.
The Supreme Court could fix this by saying, hey, actually, a district court judge can only issue rulings in their district or they can issue a nationwide injunction in this narrow set of circumstances. But eventually we may have a case that is so important an order can't be followed.
A judge might say, hey, America has to let in all the millions of people you want to enter America. You can't stop them.
Open the borders. If that happens, then President Trump should be ready to say that order is unconstitutional.
I, as commander in chief and guardian of the nation's borders, will not follow it.

And I don't say this lightly.

Ignoring a district court should be the last resort, but they are pushing us in that corner.

It should only be done in the most extreme circumstances, with the most outrageous,

beyond the pale rulings by a renegade district court judge. If we do it in one case, we should not automatically do it in others.
You must be very careful which ones you do it with. But these people are pushing President Trump in a corner.
And remember, the only court that is defined in the Constitution is the Supreme Court.

President Trump has a mandate from the American people, not district court judges. Charlie Kirk here.
When faced with a threat, you might think of lethal force, but consider a less lethal option like Berna to avoid legal issues tied to firearms. As a strong advocate for the right to bear arms, I value diverse defensive options, and Berna offers an effective alternative.
Proudly assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Berna's less lethal pistol launchers loaded with tear gas and kinetic ammunition can incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes, allowing you to safely escape or call for help while reducing the risk of severe injury. Burna is about preventing tragedy and preserving life without the consequences of using lethal measures.
It's legal in all 50 states, requires no background checks, and over 500,000 units are in the hands of responsible citizens and law enforcement. Burna can be shipped directly to your door.
I've personally tested the Burna pistol and can vouch for its effectiveness and its ease of use. Get 10% off my personally curated bundles by visiting byrna.com slash charlie.
That's byrna.com slash charlie. We're in the midst of a national injunction crisis.
Let's be specific. National injunction crisis.
Joining us now is a very smart guest and deep thinker on this, Ben Whitegarten. Ben, welcome to the program.
Ben, what is your take on this flurry of nationwide injunctions? Well, I think we are witnessing a constitutional crisis, and it's the exact opposite of the one that the left and regime media would have us believe. The crisis is that anyone of around 700 federal judges can usurp the power of the presidency, can micromanage details down to whether or not to turn flights of deported terrorists around, or what employees of the president are able to access which systems in the Treasury Department, up to initially, by the way, the Secretary of the Treasury himself, Scott Besant, and a whole slew of rulings where you have judges deciding to halt policies to protect, purportedly protect, not just the people bringing in the lawsuits, and these are generally Democrat states, left-wing NGOs and plaintiffs, but to protect and prohibit the president from enforcing his policies on anyone everywhere.
And the overreach and the abuse of these judges is happening on such a scale and at a historic rate that this demands there be a response, first from the Supreme Court. And we can talk about the fact that Chief Justice Roberts basically said, you're not going to get that response yesterday.
And if not the Supreme Court, the branch of government that created these Article III lower courts in the first place, and that's the legislative branch. And that involves, first of all, potentially getting rid of these universal injunctions by law.
And then there are more extreme remedies as well. I mean, but let's be honest, Ben, Congress is not going to do anything.
So then what's the plan? Well, let me say this. I have reported pretty extensively at real clear investigations, and I came in with that same perspective that you have of can't expect the legislative branch to do anything, which is a major problem, by the way, because that's where these issues ought to be hashed out, if anywhere.
Prove me wrong or enlighten me. So recently, out of the House Judiciary Committee, a bill passed that would prohibit nationwide injunctions unless you have multiple states bringing a case, calling for it.
And when multiple states call for it, then you get a three judge panel, at least not one radical in robes to make a decision. And then it can quickly be appealed to the Supreme Court and dealt with.
I'm told that that's very likely going to pass in the House. And then the question is going to become the Senate.
And notably, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, has said he's concerned about these universal injunctions. He told me, his office told me, they're going to have a hearing on this issue soon.
And Senator Mike Lee, who sits on judiciary, has been like a hawk on this matter, also on matters of impeachment, by the way. And he's going to put forth legislation that would curtail these injunctions.
So whether or not it passes the House and then the Senate and then the president signs it, let me just say that the fact that the legislative branch is acting on this alone should cause the courts to respond. And my concern, upon Chief Justice Roberts's outrageous, in my view, and unprecedented, extraordinary statement yesterday, responding to the president and others on impeaching Judge Boesberg and others, is the second sentence that he writes in this three-line statement is, you got to let the normal, regular appellate process play out.
That's how we deal with these things, not impeachment. That implies that he is willing to let cases ripen in the lower courts while the judiciary, the rule of law, and our constitutional order rots.
So what scares me about that statement beyond the fact he has no business opining on impeachment, which is a legislative matter and is a political remedy, not a judicial one, is he doesn't think that there's a five alarm fire. Apparently he's perfectly content to let the lower court judges paralyze a presidency and let the cases make their way up through regular course and regular order.
And the caveat here is that the Trump administration itself has asked the Supreme Court to answer this question. Are universal injunctions illegal or are they a massive overstep that's unconstitutional, unlawful, and disastrous for the country? That is being brought before the Supreme Court in the administration's challenge of universal injunctions, halting the birthright citizenship executive order, curtailing birthright citizenship.
And the responses from those who are calling for that order to be halted and who got those injunctions issued are due on April 4th. So we're going to learn within the next couple of weeks, whether Chief Justice Roberts' statement implies that there's no sense of urgency here.
And that means the court is not prepared to act on universal injunctions or the court is going to step up and step in on a matter that plagued the Trump one presidency is plaguing the Trump two presidency to an unprecedented degree and really threatens to paralyze the entire republic. Right.
I mean, but the Senate holding a hearing, that doesn't do anything right. I mean, and they're not going to pass anything there.
They just talk all day long. So do you think it's time potentially to just ignore some of these injunctions? I think that there we are best headed towards that decision.
And it's worth noting that the critics of the administration, they say he's going to defy orders, et cetera. It's been remarkable, the patience and restraint that the administration has pursued thus far.
So they're asking the Supreme Court to rule on universal injunctions. At least three Supreme Court justices have called on the courts previously to rule on their legality.
The Biden administration, the outgoing Biden administration, called on the Supreme Court to rule on their legality. The Biden administration, the outgoing Biden administration

called on the Supreme Court to rule on their legality. And Justice Gorsuch reiterated in January of this year that the court really needs to act on this.
Justice Alito, so this makes four, rebuke the Supreme Court for not smacking down Judge Amir Ali, also in the D.C. District, like Judge Boesberg, for not halting his order, universal injunction, unappealable, that not only halted the administration's pause on foreign aid, but forced it to disperse foreign aid at $2 billion within 36 hours.
So if you have, say, four of nine Supreme Court justices demanding this, it has to come to a head soon. And the only way that I see Roberts being able to squeeze his way out of what's coming before him in the immediate term is him basically arguing, well, this isn't the right case to challenge universal unctions or it's not at a stage of the case where you can challenge it.
But I think that's going to cause an outcry from other members of the judiciary. And the Trump administration is doing other things as well.
Like for example, they just issued a memorandum that demands that when they're litigating against these plaintiffs, they require as the law requires, as federal civil procedure requires, that if you're going to call for an injunction, you have to put up an injunction bond. Judges have not been ordering that these bonds be put up.
In one case I saw, a judge asked the plaintiffs to put up $100 per plaintiff as an injunction bond on an injunction that's freezing the policy for the entire country. So that's another fight, a lower fight, a subordinate fight, but an important one on this issue that's quickly going to work its way through the courts, I think, as well.
But to the point that you're asking, that we even are at a place where you have to ask, should an administration ignore a lower court's ruling because it's so lawless and it does so much damage to our country and to the Constitution? That tells you where the crisis is right now. If you are a private student loan borrower, Y-Refi could be the best thing for you.
It may not be available in all states. There's over $300 billion of private student loan debt out there and Y-Refi can help you get out of debt.
They are not a debt settlement company, but they help you guys get out of debt. So check it out right now at Y-Refi.com.
That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com. Can you imagine being debt-free and being unburdened by what has been? May not be available in all states.
Bad credit is accepted and Y-Refi offers a three-minute rate check without any credit impact. Do you have a co-borrower? Y-Refi can get them released from their loan and you can give mom or dad a break.
So check it out right now at Y-Refi.com. That is Y-R-E-F-Y.com.
So Ben, I know that even the entertaining of Define These Nationunctions is a big lift and is something that, you know, has never happened before in. I want to say never in American history, but ever since the advent of the injunction, we have not seen this.
Do you have any indication the Supreme Court is going to step up and restore order to this chaotic moment? The only way that I see it happening, and ironically, this might be because in part of Chief Justice Roberts' statement yesterday, is that certain lower court judges overstep to such a large degree that not for the right reasons on the merits, but to protect the institution of the judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts realizes that these radical jurists in robes pose a far greater threat than the people who are criticizing them and calling for there to be legislative action, including potentially impeaching them because they're acting in such a lawless way. So yeah, I wouldn't put anything past the Supreme Court, but I do think that Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts is as sensitive as anyone to defending the institution.
And it could be that because of the overreaching that we're going to see as a consequence of him saying, let's let things work through regular order, that might counterintuitively actually force the issue. But the bottom line is that these are also political questions.
And I'm sure what the left's strategy here is, is push the president as far as you possibly can, try and force him to defy a court or threaten to defy a court, and then use that as a rationale for impeachment. And then even if they're going to lose on impeachment and lose really badly, because by the way, the Democrats here are basically saying, we want to defend the rights of deported Trendaeragua terrorists.
We want to support the rights of all manner of bad actors, corrupt actors, people who are wasting billions of our taxpayer dollars. And that's going to be a losing political fight.
But still, the energy, the resources, the time, all of that would serve to sabotage and subvert the president's agenda. And that's why I think we've seen such restraint from the administration so far.
They don't want to step into the trap of getting sucked into impeachments out of the wazoo and all manner of other attacks on the presidency. But they also don't want this momentum to stop.
And that is precisely why Democrats have chosen the courts as the venue to execute this lawfare 2.0 operation, because it takes it out of the hands of our representatives and makes these nonpolitical questions, even though they're being adjudicated by hyperpolitical and zealous actors. Ben, you are the editor at large at real clear investigates.com.
Anything you're working on, you want our audience to be aware of stories that you're following or things of interest. Well, I in the future, I'm going to be testifying down on the Hill.
I can report some further details of that. I'll let let it be known via my sub stack, wine garden dot sub stack dot com.
Stay tuned as this story is fast unfolding. And there are people on the Hill whose hair is on fire.
People who you would not have expected would be up in arms and willing to go to the lance that some are threatening here. This is fast coming to a head, so stay tuned for my further reporting.
And I'll be writing about Chief Justice Roberts' statement yesterday as well, coming up soon, likely in the Federalist. I I mean, this this is going to come to a very aggressive head, and it already is, especially when it involves the president's ability to conduct foreign policy.
You're absolutely right. And this is the area where the president has the most latitude because he has to.
The whole purpose of the president was limited set of authorities, but to be able to have wide latitude and act vigorously where you need these decisions to be concentrated in the hands of one person. And we're talking about matters of war and peace here, where the courts have no earthly business micromanaging operations of deporting terrorists in this country.
If you have judges that are going to be able to be generals, be secretaries of state, be secretaries of Homeland Security, head of the Office of Management and Budget, OPM and beyond, then we cease to have a country anymore.

And that is what is at stake in this battle right now.

Ben, thanks so much for your work.

Really appreciate it.

Talk to you soon.

Thanks for having me.

Email us freedom at charliekirk.com and subscribe to our podcast.

The fight in front of us is one that we are going to win. It's a question of how we go about it.
The domestic terror campaign against Tesla right now is remarkable. Despite all this, Tesla stock is up today.
The Democrats are a movement of destruction, incineration, terrorism. That is your Democrat Party burning electric cars across the country.
A lot of these guys are going to face 20, 30, 40 years in prison. And we are not going to take kindly to the actions of electric car krystallnock.
I am curious to see how widespread this becomes,

but based on the latest report, the Democrat Party is less popular than we've ever seen them.

Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us, as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.

Thanks so much for listening, and God bless.