By Liberal lawfare has continued even though Donald Trump has taken the White House. The Trump administration has become engaged in a legal battle against the rising use of nationwide injunctions, arguing that federal district court judges have been systematically obstructing executive authority through broad rulings.
Politico explained that “judges have used nationwide injunctions to hobble many of Trump’s early moves, from his bid to end “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” programs to his cuts to federal medical research.
But Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued to the Supreme Court that federal district judges have no authority to issue sweeping orders that block policies nationwide. Instead, Harris suggested, an injunction should apply only in the geographic district where the judge is located — or only to the specific individuals or groups that sued.
‘Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,’ Harris wrote, contending that while administrations of both parties have lamented the practice, it has reached ‘epidemic proportions” during Trump’s current term.
Lower-court judges issued 15 nationwide blocks of Trump administration actions in February, Harris asserted, although in some instances the same policy was blocked by multiple judges. That one-month total outstrips the 14 nationwide injunctions issued against the federal government in the first three years of President Joe Biden’s term, she wrote, citing a law review study.“
Legal challenges to Trump’s executive actions frequently emerge in jurisdictions known for issuing liberal rulings, according to The Washington Examiner. Critics argue that advocacy groups and state attorneys general engage in “forum shopping,” strategically filing cases in courts where they are more likely to receive favorable decisions. Many of these lawsuits are filed in courts under the jurisdiction of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a historically progressive appellate court. A recent example is U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s order requiring six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary employees dismissed by the Trump administration. Given the court’s past rulings, the decision is expected to be reviewed by the 9th Circuit, which has a history of opposing Trump’s policies.
Conservative litigants have similarly taken advantage of forum shopping to challenge Democratic policies. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas ruled in favor of anti-abortion activists seeking to block access to the abortion pill mifepristone. While the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit partially upheld the ruling, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned it, stating that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The increasing use of nationwide injunctions has raised concerns among conservative justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch has cautioned that such rulings create an imbalance, allowing a single district judge to halt policies that might be upheld elsewhere. Justice Samuel Alito echoed this sentiment in a recent dissent after the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a case requiring the administration to allocate $2 billion in foreign aid. Alito questioned whether one judge should wield the power to unilaterally dictate government spending.
This week, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Biden appointee, further complicated the administration’s legal efforts by expanding an injunction that blocked enforcement of Trump’s executive orders on diversity, equity, and inclusion across all federal agencies.
In at least one case, the judge issuing the injunctions to slow down Trump’s reforms was a major Democratic donor who effectively bought his seat from the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court is expected to address the issue soon. Later this year, the justices will consider Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop, a case that could redefine the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The case stems from U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant’s decision to strike down a federal law requiring business ownership disclosures and to block its enforcement nationwide.
Congress is also weighing reforms to limit the power of individual judges to issue broad rulings. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has urged legislative action, arguing that no single judge should have the authority to “micromanage the executive branch.” Senator Dick Durbin has faced pressure from progressive groups to address the issue as well.
One potential solution, supported by legal scholars and conservative activists, would require three-judge panels—including appellate judges—to review requests for nationwide injunctions. This proposal aims to reduce the influence of district judges acting alone and make forum shopping less effective.
Although the future of these legislative efforts remains uncertain, the fight over judicial power has only begun to intensify.
[Read More: DOGE Takes On The Most Hated Agency]
