Former rivals Trump and Biden find common ground in seeking to rein in the expanding power of federal judges who can halt entire government policies with nationwide injunctions.
Quick Takes
- Both Trump and Biden administrations have urged the Supreme Court to limit nationwide judicial injunctions that can block federal policies.
- Federal judges have increasingly used nationwide injunctions as powerful tools to halt government initiatives across political lines.
- The Trump administration is currently facing multiple court orders blocking key agenda items.
- Republicans who previously supported nationwide injunctions against Biden policies now oppose them when targeting Trump.
- Despite heated rhetoric, the Trump administration has thus far followed legal norms by appealing decisions rather than defying court orders.
Unusual Bipartisan Agreement on Judicial Limits
In a rare show of alignment between political opponents, both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden have advocated for the Supreme Court to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. These powerful judicial orders can instantly halt government policies across the entire country, regardless of where the case originated. The use of such injunctions has skyrocketed in recent years, creating concerns about judicial overreach into executive branch authority and raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers.
Democrats have been crying foul for YEARS on nationwide injunctions—but now they're using them to stop Trump's agenda in its tracks
The double standard is glaring
Let's return our courts to the Constitution and BAN nationwide injunctions pic.twitter.com/IW1z5uXk5Z
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) April 2, 2025
“This court should declare that enough is enough,” argued government attorney Sarah Harris before the Supreme Court, representing the position that has found support across party lines. The concern centers on whether individual district judges should have the authority to block policies that affect the entire nation, especially when those policies were implemented by duly elected officials responsible for governing.
Trump’s Agenda Faces Judicial Roadblocks
The Trump administration is currently confronting a series of court orders that have blocked or delayed key elements of its agenda, creating friction between the executive branch and judiciary. These legal setbacks have impacted Trump’s plans to reshape federal government operations, end birthright citizenship, and control federal spending. White House officials have reportedly expressed frustration at the courts’ ability to throttle presidential initiatives through nationwide injunctions issued by individual judges.
Despite the setbacks, the administration did secure a victory when the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a dispute over the Department of Education’s freeze of DEI-related grants. The ruling allows the administration to keep $65 million in grants frozen while litigation continues, though Justice Elena Kagan dissented, criticizing the Court’s swift intervention without thorough consideration.
Political Hypocrisy on Judicial Power
The controversy surrounding nationwide injunctions has revealed shifting political attitudes that appear to align more with partisan interests than consistent principles. Republicans and conservatives who previously championed nationwide injunctions when they blocked Biden administration policies are now vocal critics when similar judicial mechanisms target Trump initiatives. Conversely, Democrats who criticized judicial overreach during the Biden administration now embrace court interventions against Trump’s agenda.
The practice of “judge-shopping” has compounded concerns, as litigants strategically file cases in specific courts to secure favorable rulings, often targeting single-judge divisions where they can predict which judge will hear their case. The Judicial Council of the United States recommended random assignment of judges for cases seeking nationwide injunctions, but this guidance has not been universally adopted, allowing the practice to continue.
Constitutional Balance at Stake
Despite increasingly heated rhetoric against the judiciary, the Trump administration has thus far followed established legal norms by appealing unfavorable decisions rather than defying court orders outright. This adherence to constitutional processes preserves the system of checks and balances, even as debate intensifies about the proper scope of judicial authority. Legal experts warn that ignoring court orders would trigger a genuine constitutional crisis with far-reaching implications.
As both sides of the political divide recognize problems with the current system, the Supreme Court faces mounting pressure to establish clearer boundaries on nationwide injunctions. This rare area of bipartisan agreement between the Trump and Biden administrations underscores the significance of balancing judicial authority with democratic governance – a concern that transcends partisan politics and speaks to the foundations of American constitutional order.
Sources:
As judges stymie Trump with injunctions, pressure builds on U.S. Supreme Court
White House officials bristle as the courts throttle parts of Trump’s agenda
Supreme Court sides with administration over Education Department grants
