Senate Weighs Legislation on Federal Court Injunctions
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is contemplating new legislation in response to a rising number of federal court rulings that hinder Senate Republicans from advancing key elements of President Donald Trump’s agenda across the country.
In a recent interview, Thune expressed frustration over the unprecedented use of national injunctions by district courts, which have stalled the implementation of several administration orders during Trump’s second term. He noted that he is looking to collaborate with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to find a legislative fix but cautioned that gaining support from Senate Democrats may be a challenge, given the requirement of a 60-vote threshold.
Thune criticized district courts for issuing sweeping injunctions that he believes may exceed their constitutional authority, warning that this trend is leading to an increase in national injunctions.
Interestingly, during the initial 100 days of Trump’s second term, a U.S. District judge issued a nationwide injunction obstructing Trump’s policies from being enacted anywhere. Conversely, during the same initial period of President Joe Biden’s term, only six national injunctions were issued, highlighting a stark difference in judicial actions between the two administrations.
Acting Attorney General Sarah Harris mentioned in March that more national injunctions were issued by district courts in February 2025 alone than throughout the first three years of the Biden administration.
“Many district courts are effectively making national policy decisions that they weren’t intended to handle when they were established,” Thune remarked. “I don’t think anyone would expect there to be a policy-making role for district courts in all 50 states.”
Since January, Congressional Republicans have proposed several bills aimed at curtailing the authority of U.S. District Court judges regarding national injunctions.
House Republican Darrell Issa has championed legislation aimed at restricting the issuance of national injunctions in April. Issa, alongside Jim Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has urged the Senate to take up the bill that passed in the House. To advance in the Senate, it will require support from at least seven Democratic senators.
Thune has voiced his backing for Grassley’s legislation, which aims to limit federal court orders to specific parties, prohibit universal injunctions, and make it necessary for plaintiffs to file class actions to seek broad relief.
“We’re enthusiastic about working on this with him and figuring out a path forward,” Thune added.
Grassley’s proposed Judicial Relief Clarification Act is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it remains to be seen what will happen next. Thune suggested that without bipartisan backing, efforts to address national injunctions in the Senate could falter due to the stringent legislative requirements.
Despite his previously wavering stance, Thune has reiterated his commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster following the shift in Senate power dynamics.
“The House can definitely act at 218 votes,” Thune stated. “It’s crucial that when I approach the committee and then the Senate floor, there’s a solid chance for success.” He added that even if all else fails, the ongoing practice of issuing wide-ranging injunctions is clearly disproportionate and needs to be confronted.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in May about the district court’s national injunction related to Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. Developments regarding judicial limitations on national injunctions could evolve, a change Thune appears to welcome.
