I would like to start this discussion by noting that I am not a lawyer – I did study Political Science at Iowa State, but I never ventured into the daunting Constitutional Law class down the hall, a decision I regret today as I ask for your opinions on nationwide injunctions.
I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.
During George W. Bush’s time in office, he faced 6 nationwide injunctions, President Obama faced 12 injunctions, and President Biden faced 14. President Trumps first term had 64 nationwide injunctions and already in his second term, President Trump saw judges issue 15 such orders in February 2025 alone.
This provides evidence that Donald Trump is facing an unprecedented onslaught of judicial activism and has led to numerous calls to rein in judges, including Senator Chuck Grassley introducing a new bill that would bar judges from issuing nationwide injunctions – with many Republican co-sponsors. This not a new stance from Senator Grassley, he has proposed it before with the exact same language. Furthermore, under President Biden, democrats complained about nationwide injunctions as well.
It is very important to note that the increase in nationwide injunctions against President Trump is strongly correlated with the increase in Executive orders under this administration. During his entire four-year term, President Biden issued 162 orders, and President Trump has already signed 137 orders before we have reached day 100 (Obama 277 over 8 years; Bush 291 over 8 years). Combined with the fact President Trump has issued orders that seem designed to challenge long-established legal precedent, I do not think it is particularly surprising that we see a small increase in the percent of Executive Orders being met with nationwide injunctions.
One major complaint I have heard about nationwide injunctions is that it gives judges “unchecked power” to stop the executive branch unilaterally, including from Elon Musk. In the event any law or executive order is deemed likely to exceed the legal authority of the issuing body, I believe it should be shut down as soon as possible. Once the injunction is issued, it is subject to review by an appellate court, and ultimately the Supreme Court to determine if it should be allowed to stand.
Since the authority of the lower court is subject to review, it is not an unchecked power. If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, the injunction prevented widespread implementation of an illegal action. If the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court, it can be implemented as initially designed, causing only a delayed implementation of the action. Therefore, I support the ability of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, whether it is to halt the Biden Administrations’ attempt to specify farmers of color in stimulus programs or President Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship.
How do you feel about nationwide injunctions and what are your arguments for or against their use?
Thank you.
Sources:
Number of injunctions halting Trump policies trounces predecessors by double | Fox News
One for all: Are nationwide injunctions legal?
Democrats quiet on anti-Trump court injunctions after opposing orders against Biden | Fox News
Grassley Introduces Legislation to Clarify the Scope of Judicial Relief
Federal Register :: Executive Orders
Judge concerned with Musk’s ‘unchecked’ power,’ declines TRO
The Supreme Court could be poised to hobble the Trump resistance – POLITICO
District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions – Harvard Law Review
Leave a Reply