National Injunction Trends from Recent Administrations

During George W. Bush’s presidency, federal judges issued 12 national injunctions against the enforcement of policies from the administrative branch. This number significantly increased during the following administrations, with 19 issued under Barack Obama and 28 during Joe Biden’s term.

The first term of Donald Trump faced an overwhelming 86 national injunctions, according to Congressional Research Services. Recently, a less predictable U.S. District Court judge has taken steps to implement further injunctions against the current Trump administration.

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in, ruling in Trump v. Casa Inc. that a nationwide injunction from a district court likely overstepped the powers Congress granted to federal courts.

Interestingly, it took less than a day for advocates to explore other legal avenues to reach similar outcomes. Dr. John C. Eastman from the Claremont Institute suggested that the strategies being used now might provoke further responses from the Supreme Court.

While Eastman is optimistic about a Trump administration victory in the end, White House officials indicated they are prepared for various legal challenges, suggesting that opponents may be attempting to obstruct the results of the recent elections.

In the case of Casa Inc., the argument revolves around the claim that individuals born in the U.S. after February 19 are not eligible for birthright citizenship due to Trump’s Executive Order 14160. The opposition has filed a request for an injunction against this order on behalf of this group.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, CASA contended that when a trial is filed as a class action, it opens the door to broader injunctive relief that could reach beyond the original parties involved.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her objection that the majority’s decision left some options open for providing extensive relief to individuals harmed by government actions.

However, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence noted that district courts must tread carefully, highlighting the need for strict adherence to the class certification process, specifically the commonality requirement.

Hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, CASA filed for an injunction claiming that the plaintiffs could not meet the necessary criteria outlined in Rule 23. Eastman stressed that it’s challenging to establish the presence of irreparable harm in these cases.

He questioned what harm could be claimed if a baby is born without citizenship status temporarily but could be recognized later if the Executive Order is deemed unconstitutional.

Although CASA may or may not succeed in its current move, it’s evident that such collective legal actions are gaining traction. The American Civil Liberties Union has already filed similar challenges, indicating a trend toward class action lawsuits in response to contentious policies.

As the landscape evolves, it seems the Trump administration anticipates a proactive legal strategy to counter these class actions. Officials have indicated that such lawsuits can be lengthy, which may work in their favor regarding implementation speed.

Eastman predicts the Supreme Court will likely become involved again soon, especially if lower courts disregard the alerts set forth by higher judicial authorities.

The ongoing actions suggest a multifaceted strategy to slow down presidential policies, with both challenges and administrative resilience at play.