President Trump has faced more nationwide injunctions in his first two months in office than any of his predecessors in recent history — except, that is, for himself during his first term.
In his first four years in office, Mr. Trump saw 64 nationwide injunctions from the courts.
But two months into his second term, he’s already at about 30, according to a post-Sunday evening on X from Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor.
By comparison, former President Biden saw roughly 14 nationwide injunctions during his first three years in office, according to the Harvard Law Review, which focused on nationwide injunctions from 2001 through 2023. The Harvard analysis notes that more than half of the nationwide injunctions issued since 1963 have been against Trump policies.
Former President Barack Obama had 12 nationwide injunctions during his time in the White House, while former President George W. Bush had just six.
A nationwide injunction — also called a universal injunction — is when a lower court issues a halt to the president’s policy or order from being enforced anywhere in the country, not just against the party bringing the legal challenge.
Mr. Trump’s agenda has been met with pushback in recent weeks at federal district courts, mostly from Biden and Obama-appointed judges who have issued blockades on many of the president’s executive orders he signed in his first few days in office.
The president’s policies over blocking transgender people from serving in the military and ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as well as halting federal funding and his moves to make massive firings have all been met with judicial blockades.
His administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in and address the issuance of nationwide injunctions in an appeal last week over his order to curtail birthright citizenship.
The justices are weighing whether to take up the request.
In the past, two justices — Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — have questioned a lower court’s authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
Some critics argue injunctions should only be issued against the parties involved in a court battle — typically the plaintiff and the defendant. But others have questioned how a court should handle a national policy — like over matters of immigration — when a judge views the law or executive order as constitutionally suspect.
Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, has said the sprawling issue of nationwide injunctions falls on the Supreme Court.
“As for the national injunctions, a lot of blame lies with the Supreme Court. The Court could have provided rules for national injunctions a decade ago. But they keep kicking the can down the road again and again. Now, there are dozens of national injunctions heading to the emergency docket. I don’t even know how the Court will deal with these issues,” he said.
Chad Mizelle, chief of staff at the Department of Justice, said the administration is giving the Supreme Court another chance this week to reverse many of the nationwide injunctions.
“Time for the Court to act and to stop lawless injunctions,” he posted on X.
• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
