Nationwide injunctions—court orders that block federal policy for the entire country, often issued by a single district judge—are a modern judicial invention that has turned into a powerful weapon against presidents, particularly conservatives.
Nationwide injunctions were almost unheard of before the 1960s. In fact, President George W. Bush faced only 12 such rulings over two terms. President Barack Obama saw 19. President Joe Biden has faced 28. But during President Trump’s first term, the number skyrocketed to 86—nearly all issued by judges appointed by Democrat presidents. Incredibly, just two months into a potential second term, over 15 nationwide injunctions have already been handed down, signaling a continued trend of judicial overreach targeting his policies.
This trend reveals a deep problem in our constitutional system. A single unelected federal judge should not be able to override presidential authority nationwide, particularly on issues like immigration, national security, or economic policy. This is judicial activism on steroids—and it’s a crisis Trump must confront head-on in a second term.
What’s the Fix?
There are two paths to ending this abuse of power according to the conservative Heritage Foundation:
- Legislation – Senator Chuck Grassley has introduced a bill that would ban nationwide injunctions. But in a divided Congress, especially with the filibuster in place, passing such a bill is an uphill battle.
- Supreme Court Action – The most direct and lasting fix would come from the Supreme Court. The Court can—and should—declare nationwide injunctions unconstitutional. Article III gives courts the power to resolve disputes between actual parties. It doesn’t authorize lower courts to impose national policy with sweeping rulings affecting people and agencies not even before the court.
Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, written in the Wall Street Journal, has suggested the Court amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 to clarify that injunctions can only apply to the parties involved. While legally viable, this procedural fix is slow and vulnerable to counterattacks from activist judges. Worse, it would only delay the inevitable: the Court will eventually have to confront the core issue of constitutionality.
Why It Matters for Trump
For President Trump to effectively govern in a second term, especially on controversial reforms, his administration cannot be held hostage by activist judges issuing rogue injunctions from the bench. These orders paralyze the executive branch and undermine democracy by allowing a single judge to counteract the will of the elected president.
As a candidate and president, Trump has rightfully called out this abuse. The Supreme Court, too, has seen dissenting voices like Justices Thomas and Gorsuch signal their disapproval. But the Court has yet to act decisively.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s second term must prioritize a constitutional reckoning with nationwide injunctions. Whether through a landmark Supreme Court ruling or congressional legislation, this unchecked judicial power must be reined in to restore balance among the branches of government. The presidency—and the Constitution—depend on it.