SCOTUS will be considering the legality of nationwide injunctions
It’s very important for the Court to rule on this:
Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation.
That’s from Jonathan Turley, who also goes into the history of such injunctions:
Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.
However, when Trump came to office, he faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14.
That was not due to more modest measures.
Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors’ orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Yet, when Trump returned to office, the number of national injunctions soared again in the first 100 days and surpassed the number for the entirety of Biden’s term.
Turley doesn’t explain why it was used so much more often against Trump, but my notion is that it’s because judges on the left are more inclined to employ it. Turley also doesn’t explain when national injunctions were first issued by lower courts, but I found some information on that here:
Commentators broadly agree that nationwide injunctions as currently understood did not exist in the pre-Founding English courts of equity, that no nationwide injunctions issued in the early years of the Republic, and that such injunctions have become more common in the last two decades.51 In a May 2019 address, Attorney General William Barr stated that federal courts “issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.” By contrast, as of February 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama’s presidency and 55 such injunctions issued against the Trump Administration. Beyond the general agreement that nationwide injunctions have increased in recent years, scholars debate many significant points, including when the first nationwide injunction issued, whether other types of injunctive relief provide historical precedent for current nationwide injunctions, and the extent to which historical precedent is relevant to the legality of nationwide injunctions today.
There’s much much more at the link. Although left and right disagree on when it started and exactly how to define it, it seems to me that the practice really picked up steam against George W. Bush and has accelerated greatly against Trump. At this point, it’s the left’s main tool against him.
ADDENDUM:
See also this article which contains a discussion of some of today’s SCOTUS hearings on the subject.
Breaking: Stenographer For Hawaiian Family Night Court Judge And Part-Time Paralegal Rules Supreme Court Does Not Have Standing To Rule On Legality Of Nationwide Injunctions.
While I detest creeping executive power, allowing nationwide injunctions by random judges are exactly the wrong way to stymy it. I can only hope that the squishies see reason.
Jonathan Turley watched the arguments and thinks it’s a “nail-biter.” Roberts may vote with Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch and Barett, uncertain. Kagan spent time trying to distinguish this case from her objections to universal injections under Biden.
https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1923053806293483747
I suspect that the increase in use of these nationwide injunctions correlates positively with the increase in the president’s use of executive orders. I am with Nonapod on the distrust of the creeping expansion of executive power. Most disturbing is the use of court injunctions to thwart the president’s constitutional executive power.
Those who support activist leftist ‘judges’ acting as our bureaucratic overseers would do well to reflect on John F. Kennedy’s warning: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” That warning equally applies to essential reforms intended to address serious grievances. Yet there may be no way to stop the reaping of the whirlwind by those who will not listen.
Yeah, Kagan tries to square a circle from her previous condemnation of national injunctions. Funny how when a D is president she’s against them, but with Trump she’s for them. Typical hypocritical liberal. What a waste of a SCOTUS seat, along with the wise Latina and KJB. Maybe add Barret to the list. Why are they all women?
I have been looking around for the legal basis of ANY injunction. Where does this power come from? What document? Congress grants or restricts judicial powers so where is this?
@Chases Eagles: Where does this power come from? What document?
The Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review in 1803, it’s not in the Constitution. Nationwide injunction seems to be something else that’s been assumed.
There’s a lot of law that isn’t written down anywhere. Sometimes it’s as basic as what words mean, but sometimes (like with laches) it’s a feature of our law that preexisted the Constitution.
We know marbury but nationwide injunctions are something else
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Seems unconstitutional.
I am afraid that Amy has deserted. She side a lot with the other women. If Trump loses, we and the US loses. Trump will be stopped, and there is nothing we can do about it. In 2028 the Dems will take the House and the Senate, and we start the S show all over again.
I don’t believe Trump will be “stopped”, but hopefully, his staff will be more careful about drafting EOs before he signs them.
@ BJ > “hopefully, his staff will be more careful about drafting EOs before he signs them.”
It’s not the drafting that’s the issue, it’s the content.
Victor Davis Hanson tells us what’s really gone down in the last 3+ months.
https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2025/05/16/the-real-first-100-days-n2657154
I believe congress has the authority to limit the jurisdiction of these courts. Whether they have the spine to do so is another matter.
Really, have they ever been more useless?
Imagine a scenario where the country is at war and some third tier judge tells the President how to conduct it.
It’s absurd, but here we are…
“Turley doesn’t explain why it was used so much more often against Trump, but my notion is that it’s because judges on the left are more inclined to employ it.”
That kind of goes without saying. Liberals, whether judges or congresscritters, or Presidents, have repeatedly demonstrated themselves willing to throw out the most basic constitutional principles if it would advance their agenda. The credo of the left should be “The ends justify the means”.
The problem is their “ends” ends with the ruination of the nation.
Conservatives will often eschew attaining the results they require if it would mean they have to violate the letter of the law in so doing.
Note that, all the claims of “fascism” and “authoritarianism” notwithstanding, Trump and his administration has, to date, meticulously followed the letter (if, perhaps, not fully the spirit) of all the legal rulings that have gone against him, no matter how outrageous and prima facia unconstitutional.
Did Biden? Student loan “forgiveness” anyone?
Chases Eagles
I suspect it derives from English or maybe American Common Law. My non-lawyer understanding is that injunctions, along with temporary restraining orders, are supposed to essentially freeze a situation, to the extent possible, that gave rise to a court case in place until such time as the judge can make a more definitive ruling. The purpose would originally have been preventing further injury or inconvenience to the requesting party, or to prevent the dissipation or destruction of evidentiary material. When one party to the action is the Federal government, it is pretty easy to work around the limited geographic jurisdiction of a District court, as has been done in some of the habeous cases involving deportations.
My understanding is that part of the explosion in both nationwide injunctions or TROs (I’m not sure which or both) is that the guidelines governing how they are issued were relaxed fairly recently (maybe under W?). For quite a while a nationwide order had to be approved by a three judge panel but that restriction was removed.
Here find a couple of Josh Blackman articles on the hearing held yesterday,
the first lengthy and minute, the second brief and humorously sad: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/16/the-department-of-justices-longstanding-general-practice-of-intracircuit-nonacquiescence/
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/16/does-justice-sotomayor-really-want-to-know-what-the-remedy-would-be-if-the-government-confiscated-everyones-guns/
AesopFan, good editorial by Victor Davis Hanson about the first hundred days of the Trump administration 2
Here is his conclusion
The net result is clear: Almost everything the vast majority of Americans and their elected representatives did not want — far-left higher education, a Pravda media, biological men destroying women’s sports, an open border, 30 million illegal aliens, massive debt, a weaponized legal system, and a politicized Pentagon — became the new culture of America.
So, Trump is not just confronting unaddressed existential crises but also the root causes of why, when, and how they become inevitable and nearly unsolvable.
His answer is a messy, knock-down-drag-out counterrevolution to reboot the country back to the middle where it once was and where the Founders believed it should remain.
His right and left opponents call such pushback chaotic, disruptive, and out of control.
Nationwide injunctions are basically just a form of lawfare.
Nonapod on May 15, 2025 at 3:23 pm said:
While I detest creeping executive power, allowing nationwide injunctions by random judges are exactly the wrong way to stymy it. I can only hope that the squishies see reason.
For the most part it isn’t creeping executive power, but POTUS attempting to establish control over the executive branch.
…and save the country.