Trump finds new target in crusade against judges: Nationwide injunctions
Washington — President Trump’s ongoing battle against nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges has sparked significant interest from both Congress and the Supreme Court. These injunctions, which have temporarily blocked various policies implemented by the Trump administration, have become a major point of contention in the legal and political spheres.
President Trump has not held back in expressing his frustration with these nationwide injunctions, which have hindered the execution of his second-term agenda. His calls for impeachment of judges who issue such orders, like James Boasberg, have ignited a larger debate about the limits of judicial power in the face of executive actions.
These nationwide or universal injunctions have been a thorn in the side of not just the Trump administration, but also previous administrations. At least a dozen such orders have been issued in response to challenges against various policies, ranging from the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military to the attempt to invoke the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport certain migrants.
The Trump administration, led by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, is now pushing for legislative and judicial action to curb the authority of district court judges to issue these sweeping nationwide injunctions. Miller emphasized the administration’s goal of preventing district courts from directing the functions of the executive branch.
Various lawmakers have also joined the fray, with both Republicans and Democrats introducing bills aimed at reforming the issuance of nationwide injunctions. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Darrell Issa have proposed legislation to limit district judges’ ability to issue such orders, while Democratic lawmakers like Sen. Mazie Hirono and Rep. Mikie Sherrill have put forth their own plans to address the issue.
At the Supreme Court, several justices have expressed concerns about the proliferation of nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Elena Kagan have both criticized the practice of allowing a single judge to halt the implementation of a policy across the entire country. Justice Clarence Thomas has also raised questions about the legality of district courts issuing universal injunctions.
Despite calls for action from the Trump administration and lawmakers, the Supreme Court has so far declined to address the issue directly. The administration’s requests for emergency relief in cases where nationwide injunctions have been issued will likely bring the debate back to the forefront in the coming months.
As the legal and political battles over nationwide injunctions continue to unfold, the role of the judiciary in shaping and restraining executive actions remains a contentious issue that is likely to have lasting implications for the balance of power in the federal government.
Overall, the fight against nationwide injunctions represents a key battleground where the boundaries of judicial authority, executive power, and legislative control intersect, shaping the trajectory of governance in the United States.
Author: Melissa Quinn, Politics Reporter for CBSNews.com
Bio: Melissa Quinn covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal, and Alexandria Times.
