Extremists probably hate seeing any form of bipartisan efforts. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have urged the Supreme Court to limit federal judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. The use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges has grown rapidly, becoming a political football depending on which party’s policies they block. Critics consider the practice of “judge”-shopping”—filing cases in specific courts to obtain favorable rulings – a problem for both parties.
Bipartisan Concerns Over Judicial Overreach
In a rare moment of agreement between political rivals, both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden have asked the Supreme Court to rein in the growing power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. These sweeping orders allow a single judge to halt government policies across the entire country, a practice that has created frustration for administrations on both sides of the political aisle. The Trump administration, through Solicitor General Sarah Harris, made their position clear in recent court filings.
The frequency of nationwide injunctions has dramatically increased in recent years, with judges appointed by presidents of both parties using this tool to block policies they find legally questionable. These powerful judicial orders have affected everything from immigration policy to student debt relief, depending on which party occupies the White House and which judges hear the cases.
"Democrats in the Biden administration were condemning judges that were putting national injunctions in and we need to make sure that hopefully this becomes a bipartisan issue."
↓
Chuck Grassley lays out plan to rein in wayward judges putting ‘unnecessary stress’ on courts… pic.twitter.com/WSzMPHwZuA— Dogs Chained And Throttled On X (@baileyjer) April 7, 2025
Trump’s Legal Challenges Mount
The Trump administration faces a growing list of court orders blocking or delaying key elements of its agenda. These legal roadblocks have impacted plans to reshape the federal government, end birthright citizenship, and control government spending. While frustrating for the administration, these judicial checks represent the traditional separation of powers within our constitutional system. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales emphasized the importance of respecting these boundaries, even when disagreeing with specific rulings.
“This court should declare that enough is enough,” Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court, echoing concerns previously raised by the Biden administration about the expanding scope of judicial power.
Despite heated rhetoric from some administration officials and supporters, the Trump team has so far followed established legal norms by appealing unfavorable decisions rather than defying court orders outright. This adherence to constitutional processes maintains the delicate balance of powers that defines American governance, even amid political frustration.
Biden actually ignored the order though… soooooo, Trump should also? Right? That's what you're saying? Congress can delete the entire court system if they want to and have majority. Supreme court's separate from that of. District courts aren't meant to have national authority… pic.twitter.com/O75bVzpDYo
— Victoria (Tori) (@StarfieldTori) April 1, 2025
Political Hypocrisy on Both Sides
The debate over nationwide injunctions has revealed a pattern of political convenience rather than consistent principle. When Biden was president, Republicans and conservatives celebrated when judges blocked his policies on issues like student debt relief or various regulatory actions. Now that Trump is back in office, many of the same officials have reversed course, condemning the judicial blocks they once praised. Democrats have made similar reversals, highlighting the partisan nature of these positions.
Legal experts have noted that nationwide injunctions are “equal opportunity offenders,” affecting both conservative and progressive policies depending on which judges hear the cases. The practice of “judge-shopping”—where” litigants deliberately file cases in specific courts to get favorable rulings – has become increasingly common but raises serious questions about judicial fairness and consistency. Some courts, particularly the Northern District of Texas, have become known for providing reliably conservative rulings through single-judge divisions.
Looking for Solutions
Some institutional reforms have been proposed to address these concerns. The Judicial Council of the United States recommended random assignment of judges for cases seeking nationwide injunctions, though this guidance wasn’t universally adopted. The Supreme Court itself may ultimately need to create clearer rules about when and how lower court judges can issue such sweeping orders. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have argued that nationwide injunctions should be limited to protect the proper functioning of government.
The rare bipartisan agreement between Trump and Biden on limiting nationwide injunctions suggests there may be room for principled reform that respects both executive authority and necessary judicial checks.