Reining in the Courts: A Fix for Nationwide Injunction Abuse

The power of a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction against the executive branch is an anomaly within our constitutional structure. It is a modern contrivance that has warped the balance of power between the judiciary and the elected branches of government. The idea that a lone judge in Maine can unilaterally freeze executive action across all fifty states violates both the spirit and the structure of American governance. This practice, increasingly deployed in a politicized manner, fosters judicial supremacy at the expense of democratic decision-making and the rule of law.

Nationwide injunctions have been wielded against presidents of both parties, but the Trump administration has faced an unprecedented number of them. During Trump’s first term, over sixty-four nationwide injunctions were issued, a sharp increase from prior administrations. The trend has continued into his second term, with multiple district judges already blocking significant executive actions. The most recent example is the executive order on birthright citizenship, which two separate judges—one in Maryland, another in Washington—have preemptively enjoined before the policy could even be enforced.

These injunctions have not been limited to immigration. In Trump’s second term, district courts have intervened on an extraordinary range of executive actions. A judge recently issued an injunction forcing Trump to rehire the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, an appointee of President Biden. This unprecedented ruling effectively dictated whom the president may employ as legal counsel, overriding executive discretion. Another judge enjoined the Treasury Secretary from accessing information within his own department, an extraordinary interference in the basic operations of the executive branch. A separate injunction has forced the administration to resume funding of federal programs, mandating that Trump obtain judicial approval before making any future changes to government spending priorities. Even federal websites have not been spared—one ruling compelled the administration to restore government webpages related to sex change operations and gender ideology, a purely ideological imposition masquerading as a legal order.

The first term of Trump’s presidency illustrated the dangers of these injunctions. Consider the travel ban case. A single district judge in Hawaii issued an injunction that had the effect of nullifying a federal executive order nationwide. This ruling forced the administration into an extended legal battle that ultimately ended with the Supreme Court upholding the policy. But by the time the Court rendered its judgment, the policy had been in limbo for months. This effectively granted the district court judge the power to set national policy, even though their reasoning was ultimately rejected at the highest level.

The abuse of injunctions is particularly evident in cases of immigration policy. Trump’s efforts to enforce stricter border controls, modify asylum procedures, and alter the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program were repeatedly hamstrung by district court rulings that applied nationwide. The fact that these injunctions were often issued in jurisdictions known for being favorable to the political opposition only adds to the perception that the judiciary has become a partisan actor. The ability to shop for a friendly judge and obtain a sweeping nationwide order undermines judicial impartiality and the credibility of the legal system.

Some defenders of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to ensure uniformity in the law. If one judge finds an executive action unlawful, they reason, it makes little sense to allow that action to continue elsewhere. But this reasoning is deeply flawed. The federal judiciary is structured to allow for disagreement among courts. Different jurisdictions can reach different conclusions, and these differences are resolved through appellate review. That is precisely how legal doctrines develop and are ultimately settled by the Supreme Court. When a single district judge can impose a nationwide rule from the outset, this deliberative process is short-circuited.

Furthermore, there is no historical basis for the kind of nationwide injunctions we see today. The practice did not become widespread until the latter half of the twentieth century, and its rapid proliferation is a recent phenomenon. Justice Clarence Thomas has noted that nationwide injunctions have little foundation in historical equity practice. The traditional role of courts is to resolve disputes between specific parties, not to issue broad legislative-like decrees.

The core problem is that nationwide injunctions distort the balance of power between the branches of government. The executive branch is tasked with enforcing the law, and Congress has the authority to craft policy. When a single unelected judge can halt the actions of the elected branches nationwide, it subverts democratic accountability. The courts are meant to adjudicate disputes, not govern by decree.

A practical solution to this issue is to require that any nationwide injunction issued against the executive branch be approved by a panel of at least three district court judges rather than a single judge. This would introduce an additional layer of scrutiny and prevent the idiosyncratic rulings of one judge from having disproportionate national effects. Moreover, such injunctions should be immediately appealable to the Supreme Court, ensuring that legal questions of national significance are resolved swiftly rather than lingering in lower courts for extended periods.

This reform would preserve the ability of courts to check unlawful executive action while curbing the excessive power currently vested in individual district judges. It would also deter forum shopping, as plaintiffs would no longer be able to target a specific judge known for ideological leanings. By restoring a more balanced approach to injunctions, this proposal would reinforce the proper role of the judiciary within the constitutional framework.

The unchecked proliferation of nationwide injunctions is an urgent problem that demands a solution. It is neither constitutionally sound nor democratically justifiable for a single lower court judge to wield the power to obstruct national policy. By implementing a panel-based approach with expedited Supreme Court review, we can restore judicial integrity, prevent judicial overreach, and ensure that executive authority is not unduly hamstrung by rogue rulings. The judiciary must return to its traditional role—resolving cases, not dictating policy.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.