Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope.

Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations.

Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”

Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action.

Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences.

While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process.

Rise in Nationwide Injunctions

According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years.

Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House.

The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms.

That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party.

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party.

Judges have defended the nationwide scope of their rulings.

“The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care.

“The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender-affirming medical care.”

In issuing a preliminary injunction on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” as plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states.

Supreme Court Review

Experts have pointed to Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship as one that’s likely to reach the Supreme Court. Given a recent filing by the Trump administration, it could prompt a broader ruling about nationwide injunctions.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to say “enough is enough.” She filed a petition asking the court to review three nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. She noted that the number of universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued against the current administration has already outpaced the first three years of the Biden administration.

She argued that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Under Biden, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a filing that “the government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can block a federal statute or regulation nationwide with just a single lower-court victory.”

Read the rest here…