In a fiery Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) dismantled the testimony of progressive legal scholar Kate Shaw, a former Obama White House counsel and current law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
The exchange exposed what many conservatives have long suspected—liberal legal elites are increasingly willing to distort the Constitution to suit their political agenda, even under oath.
The confrontation centered on the controversial use of nationwide injunctions—court orders that block the enforcement of federal laws or executive actions across the entire country, not just in a single jurisdiction. These sweeping judicial measures have become a favored tool of leftist judges to undermine conservative administrations, particularly during the Trump presidency.
Senator Kennedy, known for his sharp wit and legal acumen, wasted no time in pressing Shaw on her inconsistent views. He cited multiple examples of her prior writings, media commentary, and academic papers that had criticized Trump-era judges for issuing national injunctions. Yet, under oath, Shaw astonishingly claimed she had never opposed such injunctions when used by progressive judges.
“You said you believe in an independent judiciary,” Kennedy said, holding up a highlighted copy of her past articles. “But when it’s conservative judges issuing rulings you don’t like, you suddenly call it an ‘abuse of power.’ Isn’t that just hypocrisy dressed up as legal theory?”
Shaw appeared visibly flustered and attempted to downplay her prior statements. However, Kennedy proceeded to read her own words back to her, line by line, in what quickly became an embarrassing moment for the professor. At one point, she refused to answer directly, prompting Kennedy to respond, “You’re dodging like a cat on a hot tin roof.”
Observers noted that Shaw’s attempt to obfuscate her record backfired spectacularly. Even left-leaning media outlets struggled to defend her contradictory stance. What began as an academic testimony turned into a political and ideological indictment of the activist left’s manipulation of the judiciary.
Nationwide injunctions are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, and their increasing use has drawn criticism from jurists across the ideological spectrum. Yet, under the Obama and Biden administrations, their application has been not only tolerated but celebrated—so long as the rulings favor progressive policies.
Conservatives have long argued that such sweeping orders violate the separation of powers and encroach on the rights of other federal courts to adjudicate similar cases independently. Kennedy’s line of questioning made it clear that progressives like Shaw seem comfortable with judicial overreach—so long as it advances their political objectives.
“This isn’t about law; it’s about power,” Kennedy said in a follow-up interview. “When liberals can’t get what they want through elections, they run to friendly judges to impose it on the entire country.”
The exchange was a masterclass in Senate oversight and a stark reminder of why Senator Kennedy remains one of the most effective conservative voices in Congress. While the mainstream media routinely ignores or downplays such confrontations, grassroots conservatives and legal watchdogs celebrated the moment as a long-overdue accountability check on the activist legal class.
Shaw, who is married to MSNBC legal analyst Chris Hayes and has been a frequent contributor to liberal media outlets, has long positioned herself as a neutral academic voice. But critics argue her political affiliations and public statements paint a very different picture—one of a partisan operator using her legal credentials to mask an ideological agenda.
The Judiciary Committee hearing aimed to explore whether legislative action is needed to curb the misuse of nationwide injunctions, especially in politically charged cases. While Shaw attempted to frame her position as nuanced and balanced, Kennedy’s surgical questioning laid bare the inconsistencies that have frustrated conservatives for years.
Kennedy concluded the exchange by highlighting the danger of allowing unelected judges to dictate national policy. “If you want to change the law, run for Congress,” he said. “But don’t pretend you’re interpreting the Constitution when you’re really rewriting it.”
Shaw offered no rebuttal.
The incident has reignited calls among Senate Republicans for judicial reform and the possible limitation of nationwide injunctions through new legislation. Critics argue that the tactic has been weaponized by liberal groups seeking to halt conservative reforms before they can even take effect.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) echoed Kennedy’s concerns, calling the widespread use of nationwide injunctions “a constitutional perversion” that undermines the rule of law and democratic accountability. “We must return to a judiciary that respects jurisdictional boundaries and refrains from acting as a super-legislature,” Lee stated.
As the Biden administration continues to pursue controversial policies through executive orders, many conservatives fear the courts will once again become battlegrounds where ideological allies of the White House circumvent Congress to achieve political goals.
This week’s hearing may mark a turning point. Thanks to Senator Kennedy’s tenacity, the veil of neutrality worn by progressive legal scholars like Kate Shaw was pulled back, revealing a troubling willingness to misrepresent legal norms in the service of political gain.
Conservative Americans, already wary of judicial activism, now have yet another example of how the left leverages the courts to impose its will—regardless of constitutional constraints or public accountability.
