In November, over 77 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Their choice was largely driven by hopes for increased safety, a restoration of law and order, and a return to common-sense governance.
Since taking office, Trump has made several commitments. He’s issued numerous executive orders reflecting his policy priorities. This, I think, is how it should work—citizens elect a president who then directs the operations of the administration to pursue their agenda.
Yet, during the early months of Trump’s second term, we’ve seen a pushback against his policies. This resistance, emerging from federal judicial circles, seems to challenge democratic principles and the rule of law.
Since his inauguration, U.S. District Court judges have imposed more than 40 nationwide injunctions that halt his policy efforts. This number far exceeds the 64 injunctions issued during his first term, marking a significant uptick in the use of such legal tools.
Many of these injunctions have been initiated by liberal activists and favored judges in particular jurisdictions, which raises questions about their legitimacy. National injunctions, I think, serve to sidestep the judicial system’s typical function of resolving disputes between specific parties.
The concept of a nationwide injunction lacks roots in American legal principles or English common law. It seems to violate judicial restraint and brings serious challenges to our constitutional framework.
Constitutional law specifies that courts should handle only “cases” and “controversies.” This limitation makes sense—judges should not make rulings that impact people who have no direct involvement in the case at hand. However, a nationwide injunction allows a single federal judge to block policies affecting millions, creating a form of judicial override that isn’t outlined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, these types of injunctions complicate the justice system. They often lack thorough fact-checking, particularly when established as temporary measures. This can lead to appeals based on incomplete and sometimes misleading records. Special interest plaintiffs have an advantage here, as they can pursue their cases in multiple jurisdictions, making it difficult for the government to defend against every challenge.
The increase in nationwide injunctions, especially during the initial months of Trump’s administration, calls for action.
In the House of Representatives, a bill aimed at limiting judges’ ability to issue such injunctions has been passed. It was sponsored by Congressman Issa and is now waiting for Senate action. The Judiciary Committee has been actively monitoring this situation, and we’ve called for reforms in the judicial system.
However, the best chance for addressing the misuse of nationwide injunctions lies with the Supreme Court. Recently, the Court heard a case related to an immigration nationwide injunction. This case presents a critical opportunity to limit the potential for judicial overreach and remind lower courts of their constitutional functions.
Chief Justice John Roberts once compared a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire, responsible solely for calling balls and strikes. In this analogy, applying a national injunction from one location to others is fundamentally flawed and shouldn’t be accepted in our legal system.
Ultimately, it’s the people who hold the authority in our democracy. We’re fortunate to have a system where policy decisions are made by elected officials, rather than by unelected bureaucrats or judges. The elected president’s policies should not be subject to approval from a small group of district court judges. The Supreme Court must work to put an end to the misuse of nationwide injunctions.
Rep. Jim Jordan oversees the House Judiciary Committee, while Rep. Darrell Issa chairs the subcommittee on intellectual property, artificial intelligence, and the Internet.
