In a rare display of political consensus, former rivals Trump and Biden find themselves aligned on the need to limit the expanding power of federal judges to issue nationwide court orders that can halt government policies with the stroke of a pen.
Key Takeaways
- Both Trump and Biden administrations have urged the Supreme Court to restrict federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions that can block entire government policies.
- The use of nationwide injunctions has increased dramatically, affecting policies across both Republican and Democratic administrations.
- “Judge-shopping” – where litigants file cases in specific courts to get favorable rulings – has become a controversial practice used by both political parties.
- Trump’s administration currently faces multiple court orders blocking key policy initiatives, raising tensions between the executive branch and judiciary.
- Despite rhetoric criticizing judges, the Trump administration has thus far followed legal norms by appealing decisions rather than defying court orders.
The Growing Power of Judicial Orders
Nationwide injunctions have emerged as powerful tools that allow a single federal judge to halt government policies across the entire country. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have found themselves frustrated by these sweeping judicial orders that can effectively paralyze executive action. The increasing frequency of these injunctions has prompted top lawyers from both administrations to seek ways to limit this judicial authority, highlighting an unusual moment of bipartisan agreement in today’s deeply divided political landscape.
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
Through the Department of Justice, the Trump administration has recently asked the Supreme Court to address what government attorney Sarah Harris described as an urgent situation, declaring that “This court should declare that enough is enough.”
Trump’s Legal Challenges
The Trump administration currently faces numerous court orders blocking or delaying significant portions of its agenda, including plans to reshape the federal government, end birthright citizenship, and control spending. These legal setbacks have prompted frustration among White House officials and sparked debate about the proper boundaries between branches of government. While some administration supporters have used increasingly harsh rhetoric against judges, experts warn that ignoring court orders would trigger a constitutional crisis.
“To willfully ignore the courts could be grounds for impeachment in my judgment – or at least public condemnation and congressional censure,” said Alberto Gonzales, who served as attorney general under President George W. Bush.
Despite heated rhetoric, the administration has thus far followed legal norms by appealing decisions rather than defying court orders outright. This adherence to established processes maintains the system of checks and balances while seeking relief through proper channels. The Supreme Court recently sided with the administration in one significant case, allowing it to keep $65 million in Department of Education grants frozen while legal challenges proceed.
Political Hypocrisy on Both Sides
One of the most striking aspects of the nationwide injunction debate is how political attitudes have shifted based on which party controls the White House. During the Biden administration, Republicans and conservatives frequently celebrated when judges blocked Biden policies on issues like student debt relief or immigration reforms. Now that Trump faces similar judicial roadblocks, many former supporters of nationwide injunctions have reversed course and argue these powers should be curtailed.
Democrats have shown similar inconsistency, previously criticizing nationwide injunctions when they blocked Obama-era policies but celebrating them when they hampered Trump initiatives. This pattern of shifting principles based on political advantage underscores that nationwide injunctions function as “equal opportunity offenders,” affecting administrations of both parties depending on which judges are hearing cases and which policies are being challenged.
Potential Reforms on the Horizon
The Judicial Council of the United States has recommended implementing a random assignment system for judges in cases seeking nationwide injunctions, which would help prevent strategic “judge-shopping.” However, this guidance has not been uniformly adopted across federal courts. Some legal scholars have proposed limiting nationwide injunctions to apply only to parties directly involved in litigation, while others argue the Supreme Court should establish clearer guidelines on when such broad relief is appropriate.
As both sides of the political spectrum grapple with the proper role of nationwide injunctions, this rare area of bipartisan concern may eventually lead to meaningful reforms that preserve judicial independence while preventing individual judges from wielding disproportionate power over national policy. The current agreement between the Trump and Biden administrations on limiting these judicial orders presents an opportunity for eventual consensus on reforming a system that has frustrated presidents of both parties.
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
