On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this argument in a series of cases, requiring the court to decide whether judges from various district courts can unilaterally prevent the federal government from enforcing laws or policies nationwide. The court should have a chance to end this practice.

Usually, when the local court faces a challenge to the plaintiff’s federal policy, the court’s injunction only applies to that plaintiff.

However, in the 1960s, some judges invented a new tool called the "universal ban" to impose their will on the country. Rather than addressing one plaintiff’s concern, these judges began asking the government to implement a policy of opposition Anyone,,,,, Anywhere.

The universal injunction gives individual judges special powers. Don't like the laws passed by Congress? Leaving. Don't like agent regulations? Dead. Don't like one of the president's policies? Sayonara.

The only solution to the radical district judge's crisis

At first, these general bans were not common. Until the 21st century, the court issued only 27 universal injunctions. But in recent decades, they have become a fact of life. President Joe Biden faces 14 universal bans in four years, and Donald Trump has surpassed that number in less than four months.

There is no place in the Constitution that says the District Court has great power. Congress has never authorized the court to issue a universal injunction. In England, the United States also received no general ban, where the United States gained most of its jurisprudence.

However, judges across the country still claim that they have the right to stop the entire federal government with pens.

Rogue, left-wing judge is caused by obsession with feelings rather than facts

Worse, after the preliminary hearing, judges often issue these general injunctions, with limited debates between the parties. No jury. No trial. There is no real test of the evidence at all. This also means that the courts have little time to consider legal issues. That's why judges were able to shut down national federal policies in days or even hours.

This practice actually gives the country's most extreme jurists unrestrained discretion. The government can successfully defend a policy in front of hundreds of district judges, but a single judge who disagrees can still phase out the policy nationwide.

Click here for more Fox News comments

Since the injunction can prohibit the enforcement of laws or policies anywhere, the federal government is forced to immediately appeal the case to the Supreme Court when necessary. This hasty process undermined judicial decision-making.

The Supreme Court prefers cases to spend time and legal issues permeate the lower courts. This ensures that many legal scholars and judges have the opportunity to share their views and fully review the issue. But universal injunctions often force the Supreme Court to abandon this thorough, deliberate process in favor of hasty rulings based on half-cooked abstracts.

A rogue judge should not force the Supreme Court to rush to resolve complex legal issues as he or she assumes the power to ban federal policy nationwide.

Click here to get the Fox News app

This is not an ideological issue. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan all expressed concerns about short circuits in the U.S. judicial system. This is not a partisan issue either. Biden and President Trump's lawyers general have asked the Supreme Court to end the universal ban.

These people understand better than anyone else, the use of general injunctions by district court judges threatens to understand the judiciary and even our entire government system. I hope the court will take advantage of the opportunity to end this illegal practice once and for all.

Click here to learn more about Sen. John Kennedy