At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing held Tuesday to examine the use and abuse of nationwide injunctions, Republican Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) pressed University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw over her past public statements and legal positions, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in her views on the judicial practice of universal injunctions.

Shaw, who was invited by Democratic committee members to testify as an expert witness, was questioned by both senators regarding her prior criticism of nationwide injunctions under Republican administrations, and her current stance under President Donald Trump’s administration.

Sen. Kennedy focused on what he described as an apparent shift in Shaw’s legal positions regarding nationwide injunctions, especially in relation to changes in executive leadership.

He referred to past statements where Shaw described nationwide injunctions as problematic, and contrasted those views with her recent statements appearing to support such actions.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

MORE NEWS: Trump Scores Major Win as Iran Agrees to Nuclear Ban and Reopening the Strait of Hormuz [WATCH]

“Some of your writings suggest that you were strongly against the use of these injunctions not long ago,” Kennedy said.

“But now that there’s been a change in the White House, they suddenly seem to taste like pumpkin pie.”

Kennedy went on to challenge the legal consistency of Shaw’s position.

Shaw responded by stating that her views have evolved in response to the context of each case and the scope of the actions being challenged.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Following ongoing debates over border security and immigration policy in 2026, do you support stricter enforcement measures?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Sen. Hawley followed with a line of questioning that sought to draw a clear contrast between Shaw’s public comments on the use of injunctions under the Biden-Harris administration and her current statements regarding similar court rulings under President Trump.

“So long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said.

“If it’s a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted, and called for?”

Shaw began to respond, “That is not—” before Hawley interjected, asking directly, “How can our system of law survive on those principles, Professor?”

Close

MORE NEWS: AOC Draws Fire for Telling Northerners to ‘Pull Up’ on the South While Hiding Behind Bulletproof Glass [WATCH]

Shaw maintained that her concern was primarily with preserving a balance of power and judicial checks on executive authority, stating, “I think a system in which there are meaningful constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law.”

Hawley responded by citing specific language from Shaw’s previous writings, including her warning that the use of nationwide injunctions posed a threat to the rule of law and created an appearance of “judges looking like politicians in robes.”

“You’re fine with all of that if it’s getting the result that you want,” Hawley said, arguing that Shaw’s position lacked a consistent legal foundation and changed based on political outcomes.

Shaw responded that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed with her position in a particular case.

Hawley pushed back, stating that the Court did not issue a ruling directly on the scope of the nationwide injunction in question.

“You couldn’t identify a single principled basis,” Hawley concluded.

“All that’s changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

The hearing was held as part of a broader discussion on judicial overreach and the increasing use of nationwide injunctions to block executive actions.

MORE NEWS: Trump Admin Targets Pro Cuba Radicals Hasan Piker and Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin in Sanctions Probe [WATCH]

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have debated whether such rulings should remain available to federal district judges, especially as they are used to halt policies nationwide rather than affecting only individual plaintiffs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to continue its review of the issue as legal experts and lawmakers examine legislative options to clarify or limit the use of such injunctions.

No immediate legislative proposals were introduced during Tuesday’s hearing.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.