Trump has asked the Supreme Court to curtail lower court injunctions that have surged during his administrations.
News Analysis
President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope.
Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations.
Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”
Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action.
Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences.
While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process.
Rise in Nationwide Injunctions
According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years.
Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House.
The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms.
That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party.
President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party.
By Sam Dorman
