Judges at the federal level throughout the nation are granting "nationwide injunctions" to prevent President Donald Trump from enforcing policies that various groups have sued to halt.
In this newest iteration of "legal battles" targeting Trump, numerous interest groups have initiated legal actions against his administration from Inauguration Day onwards. These groups strategically selected courts known for judges who were predisposed to support their perspectives when filing these lawsuits.
The following action involved requesting a temporary restraining order, known as a TRO, to stop the contested policy from going into effect right away. This type of order typically lasts around two weeks. After this period, the organizations could pursue a preliminary injunction, which has the potential to halt the Trump administration’s activities until the legal case concludes eventually.
It might take several years. A complete presidential term could be hampered in this manner, and that is precisely the intention.
Up until now, legal actions have been initiated to compel governmental expenditure, reinstate terminated workers to their positions, permit unlawful migrant gang affiliates to remain within the United States, and also to obstruct fraud prevention efforts conducted by the DOGE unit at the Social Security Administration.
So far, over 150 legal cases have been initiated concerning various aspects of the Trump administration’s policies or choices. This information comes from CourtWatch.news, a platform aiming to monitor these proceedings.
It's uncertain whether district court judges genuinely possess the power to grant "nationwide injunctions" aimed at halting a president's policies. However, the question remains: Who can counteract such actions?
You could be astonished. The U.S. government isn't quite like how it appears on TV.
Consider Congress as an illustration. It frequently appears to be the least effective and most problematic part of the government. According to averages from recent surveys compiled by Ballotpedia, merely 31% of Americans endorse how Congress is performing its duties.
It appears as though the presidency holds the greatest power, yet is this really true? Not when federal judges have the ability to block a president’s policies for extended periods every time someone initiates a legal challenge against them.
Is the judicial branch then considered the most influential one? It can seem so at times. Frequently, we've witnessed significant shifts in national policies due simply to the partial consensus of five out of nine judges selected by the president who was serving when an opening occurred on the bench.
That said, this isn’t the agreement we signed.
The agreement we inked, the U.S. Constitution, grants the Supreme Court absolutely no part in shaping national policy, and it positions Congress as the dominant body within the American government.
The federal government's purse strings lie with Congress, which holds the sole authority to initiate warfare. This body stands as the singular governmental entity capable of impeaching and removing officeholders across all other branches, including those appointed judicial officers. Additionally, Congress possesses the prerogative to establish or dismantle lower courts beneath the apex of the judicial system—the Supreme Court. Perhaps less known is their capacity to restrict and oversee the range of appeals heard by the Supreme Court. Essentially, Congress dictates the scope within which the justices operate when reviewing legal disputes.
This clause is known as the "Exceptions Clause," located at Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall prescribe."
Therefore, Congress possesses explicit constitutional power to establish rules or exemptions aimed at stopping "nationwide injunctions" from impeding the president’s actions as civil lawsuits prolong over several years.
"nationwide injunctions" have been employed by various factions within the political landscape. For instance, following the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of the Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022, anti-abortion organizations initiated legal action in a federal court located in Texas. Their aim was to annul the FDA’s authorization of mifepristone, which is utilized in medication-induced terminations. The presiding judge then handed down a nationwide order halting the drug’s approval.
This led Dean Erwin Chemerinsky from the UC Berkeley School of Law to pen an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "How One Judge in Amarillo Ended Up Deciding If All Americans Can Access the Abortion Pill." In his piece, he contended that allowing parties involved in legal disputes "to choose a specific judge could result in such judges issuing sweeping national bans that create widespread disorder across the nation."
President Biden faced 14 comprehensive national injunctions against his policies by the time he completed three years in office. However, within just three months, President Trump's policies encountered even more injunctions, setting a new record.
Even though it might seem, particularly to those working for the government, that Trump is implementing drastic alterations, he is actually reintroducing an aspect of American governance that hasn’t been present for quite some time: responsibility to the electorate.
The legislative branch, known for its accountability through biennial elections, has progressively ceded significant influence to "independent" entities within the executive branch, which operate without oversight from anyone else. The question arises as to why Congress relinquishes such power; perhaps it’s due to their ability to sidestep blame by transferring authority to these unanswerable organizations, thereby allowing members of Congress to feign surprise and outrage when issues arise later on.
Meanwhile, the executive branch has been controlled by an unyielding bureaucracy shielded from responsibility through civil service protections.
Even federal judges enjoy heightened immunity from oversight, protected by their lifelong tenure. As Alexander Hamilton once described, he considered the judicial branch to be "the least dangerous" due to its lack of enforcement capabilities and presence solely to exercise judgment. However, this perspective did not anticipate how judges would gradually expand their own roles beyond what was initially envisioned. Not content with just issuing nation-wide stays, these jurists progressively assumed an influential policymaking position—a shift most notably reflected through landmark rulings over the past century where Supreme Court Justices encroached upon decisions traditionally held at the state and municipal levels, such as regulations concerning homelessness, law enforcement practices, and reproductive freedoms.
The Declaration of Independence, displayed in the Oval Office, asserts that just powers for governance come from the agreement of those being ruled. The ratified Constitution serves as the manifestation of this accord.
Clearly, Congress possesses the authority to stop district judges from granting nationwide injunctions. The quicker this happens, the better.
Write [email protected] And follow her on X @Susan_Shelley
©2025 MediaNews Group, Inc. Go to dailynews.com every day. Delivered by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.