Gregg Jarrett provides one long-established reason judges lack legal authority to block Trump nationwide

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Monday that activist judges have no constitutional authority to impose nationwide injunctions to block President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Supreme Court will soon issue a major ruling that could clarify how far lower court judges can go to block Trump’s policies nationwide. During an appearance on “The Evening Edit,” Jarrett said politically motivated judges have exploited legal gray areas to impose sweeping blocks against Trump’s policies, despite lacking the constitutional power to do so.

“There is absolutely nothing in the law that allows these district judges to order anything beyond their own physical district,” Jarrett told Fox Business host Elizabeth MacDonald. “Their jurisdiction is narrowly defined under the Constitution to cases and controversies before them, which means they may not issue orders nationwide that impact millions of people who never set foot inside their courtroom.”

Jarrett blamed what he said was political bias for a breakdown in judicial discipline.

WATCH: 

“In the age of Trump, judges are ignoring their duty, ignoring the law. They’re driven by political bias, and the result is unelected judges who think they have unfettered veto power over the president, and the truth is they do not,” Jarrett said.

When asked whether Congress could intervene if the Supreme Court fails to rein in the abuse, Jarrett didn’t hesitate.

“Oh, absolutely, and I think that’s really necessary. The House already passed a bill restricting nationwide injunctions. It’s up to the Senate now to approve it, pass it on to the president for signature,” Jarrett said.

Jarrett said Congress has every right to act.

“Congress created the federal court system, Liz, and it has the power to constrain it. Trump’s been in office less than five months already, [with] 170 lawsuits filed against him, 40 injunctions issued to stop him from implementing his agenda,” Jarrett said. “Voters put him into office for a reason, and judges need to respect that.”

Federal judges blocked Trump’s second-term agenda with 25 sweeping injunctions in just his first 100 days, a May report from the Congressional Research Service said. By contrast, former President Joe Biden saw only four such rulings early in his term, and Trump’s first term faced six.

The Supreme Court in May heard arguments over whether district judges can block the administration’s birthright citizenship order nationwide. The justices may curb the scope of these sweeping rulings.