President Donald Trump has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that have repeatedly blocked key components of his policy agenda. These injunctions, also known as “universal” injunctions, enable a single judge to halt the enforcement of federal policies across the entire country.
The use of nationwide injunctions has become a significant hurdle for the Trump administration. For instance, federal judges have issued such injunctions to block Trump’s executive order restricting automatic U.S. birthright citizenship. In response, the administration has filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, arguing that these broad judicial orders are “toxic” and overstep the bounds of judicial authority.
This concern over nationwide injunctions is not exclusive to the Trump administration. Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General under former President Joe Biden, also expressed apprehension about these injunctions, stating that they cause “substantial disruption” to government operations.
Legal scholars note that the increasing frequency of nationwide injunctions raises questions about the balance of power among the branches of government. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, observed that such injunctions are a method of “cabining executive power,” affecting both Democratic and Republican administrations.
As the Supreme Court considers these appeals, the outcome could have significant implications for the separation of powers and the future implementation of presidential policies. The Court’s decision will likely influence the extent to which individual judges can impact nationwide policy through injunctions.
