Floor SpeechBipartisan2025-03-31

Introductory Statement on S. 1206

TaxesEnvironment

Context

On 2025-03-31, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) delivered a floor speech titled "Introductory Statement On S. 1206" in the Senate. The speech addressed taxes and also covered the environment. It referenced legislation including S1206, S1925, S1926.

Full Text

Introductory Statement on S. 1206

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 57 (Monday, March 31, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 57 (Monday, March 31, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S1925-S1926] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Budd, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Justice, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Moreno, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Lee): S. 1206. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of national injunctions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, 20 of my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to stop the abuse of universal injunctions that we are seeing all across the country--all of this to stop the Trump agenda. Universal injunctions violate the words of the Constitution that we agreed that the courts can only hear ``case or controversy.'' And that is a requirement of article III of the Constitution because they apply court orders to people not even parties to the lawsuits--so the necessity for doing away with universal injunctions violating the ``case-or-controversy'' requirements. Universal injunctions were almost unheard of for the first 175 years of our history and only became common in the last decade. In addition to being unconstitutional, they are also anti-democratic. Universal injunctions have become a favorite tool of those seeking to obstruct President Trump's agenda. Individual district judges who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts are singlehandedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement. Now, universal injunctions have been used against both Democrat and Republican administrations since they have sprung up so numerously in the last few years. But in the past 2 months alone, judges have issued more universal injunctions against the Trump administration than President Biden faced throughout his entire 4-year term. By exercising power this way, the courts are doing great damage to the judicial process that they should be working to protect, and the Supreme [[Page S1926]] Court could stop this whole process, but the Supreme Court has not taken such action. So it is Congress's job to legislate. So what would you expect? I am introducing legislation to solve this problem. My bill prevents judges from providing nonparty relief, make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable, and reset the separation of powers. In short, I am trying to fix a bipartisan problem that has been plaguing both Democratic and Republican administrations alike. ______

Referenced legislation: S1206

View original source →

Introductory Statement on S. 1206 Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 57 (Monday, March 31, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 57 (Monday, March 31, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S1925-S1926] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Budd, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Justice, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Moody, Mr. Moreno, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Cassidy, and Mr. Lee): S. 1206. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of national injunctions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, 20 of my colleagues and I will introduce legislation to stop the abuse of universal injunctions that we are seeing all across the country--all of this to stop the Trump agenda. Universal injunctions violate the words of the Constitution that we agreed that the courts can only hear ``case or controversy.'' And that is a requirement of article III of the Constitution because they apply court orders to people not even parties to the lawsuits--so the necessity for doing away with universal injunctions violating the ``case-or-controversy'' requirements. Universal injunctions were almost unheard of for the first 175 years of our history and only became common in the last decade. In addition to being unconstitutional, they are also anti-democratic. Universal injunctions have become a favorite tool of those seeking to obstruct President Trump's agenda. Individual district judges who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts are singlehandedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement. Now, universal injunctions have been used against both Democrat and Republican administrations since they have sprung up so numerously in the last few years. But in the past 2 months alone, judges have issued more universal injunctions against the Trump administration than President Biden faced throughout his entire 4-year term. By exercising power this way, the courts are doing great damage to the judicial process that they should be working to protect, and the Supreme [[Page S1926]] Court could stop this whole process, but the Supreme Court has not taken such action. So it is Congress's job to legislate. So what would you expect? I am introducing legislation to solve this problem. My bill prevents judges from providing nonparty relief, make temporary restraining orders immediately appealable, and reset the separation of powers. In short, I am trying to fix a bipartisan problem that has been plaguing both Democratic and Republican administrations alike. ______ Referenced legislation: S1206