President Trump’s agenda has faced significant legal hurdles through nationwide injunctions, where single federal judges block policies across the country. Conservative legal experts argue this judicial tactic enables “lawfare” against executive authority, demanding solutions to rein in courts overstepping their constitutional role.
###
The Supreme Court holds immediate power to curb nationwide injunctions by:
– : The Trump administration has asked justices to limit injunctions to specific cases rather than applying them universally. For example, in the birthright citizenship case, Solicitor General Andrew Olensky argued courts lack authority to shield nonparties from the policy.
– : Over 68% of anti-Trump injunctions have come from Democratic-appointed judges in favorable jurisdictions like California and New York. The Court could enforce rules preventing plaintiffs from handpicking ideologically aligned courts.
– : Justices previously upheld Trump’s travel ban and transgender military policy after lower courts blocked them. Rapid review of injunctions (e.g., birthright citizenship) could prevent prolonged limbo.
###
Legislative options include:
– : Proposals like Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) bill would require injunctions affecting all Americans to be decided by three-judge panels, reducing partisan rulings.
– : Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) plan would centralize challenges to federal policies in D.C. courts, ending forum shopping.
– : Requiring plaintiffs to show direct harm from a policy—not theoretical grievances—would block activist groups from filing speculative lawsuits.
###
The surge in injunctions reflects:
– : Trump issued 100+ orders in his first 65 days—more than FDR’s first 100 days—creating more legal targets.
– : Traditional constraints like Senate confirmation of judges and DOJ norms have weakened, empowering rogue judges to act unilaterally.
– : 92% of injunctions against Trump were issued by Democrat-appointed judges, vs. 100% against Biden by Republican appointees.
Conservatives argue restoring constitutional balance requires bold moves to protect presidential authority from judicial overreach. With the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and GOP-controlled Congress, solutions appear within reach—but timing and political will remain hurdles.
