President Donald Trump has had enough of federal district court judges issuing sweeping blockades against his second-term agenda.
Legal battles over the Trump administration‘s executive actions have repeatedly played out in strategically chosen courts, where judges have issued nationwide injunctions against several of his key policies. The Trump Department of Justice took precise aim against nationwide injunctions on Thursday in a trio of Supreme Court appeals over nationwide blockades against his bid to end birthright citizenship, saying the use of injunctions has reached “epidemic proportions.”
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the high court Thursday.
The Trump administration and its allies argue that the tactic of blocking executive actions nationwide early into litigation — paired with what is known as “forum-” or “judge-shopping,” where plaintiffs seek out favorable courts — has been used to obstruct executive authority, a problem that has persisted long before Trump first took office in 2016.
“It’s an issue that’s been ongoing in a large way, for about 20 years,” Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told the Washington Examiner. “I think it is well past time for a congressional solution.”
How are nationwide injunctions and judge-shopping tied together?
Many of the challenges to Trump’s policies have landed in friendly jurisdictions, though often not by accident. District courts that fall under the purview of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known for its liberal rulings, are one example of a common target destination for liberal advocacy groups and Democratic attorneys general.
Also on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton in California, issued a sweeping order requiring six federal agencies to immediately reinstate thousands of probationary employees fired by the administration last month. When the administration appeals, it will move to the 9th Circuit for review. The lawsuit is backed by the State Democracy Defenders Fund, a left-leaning group headed by Norm Eisen, a staunch Trump critic and Democrat.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Alsup’s decision in a statement Thursday, saying, “The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda.”
Conservative litigants have also engaged in similar tactics in the past. In 2023, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, ruled in favor of anti-abortion activists seeking to ban the abortion pill mifepristone, a move that enraged abortion-rights advocates and led to similar left-wing complaints about forum shopping. However, the Supreme Court eventually unwound the decision, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, after the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit partially upheld Kacsmaryk’s original decision.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, warned in 2020 that nationwide injunctions create an “asymmetric” legal battlefield where any policy can be halted by one judge, even if others would uphold it.
Justice Samuel Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, expressed similar frustration last week after the Supreme Court declined to block a single district court judge’s order forcing the Trump administration to pay $2 billion in foreign aid.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote in a scathing dissent, calling the majority’s decision “stunning.”
Trump’s recent nationwide setback over DEI
Adding to the frustration, a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, an appointee of Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, further illustrates the stakes of judges heavily using nationwide injunctions.
In a challenge to Trump’s executive orders (EO 14151 and EO 14173), Abelson on March 11 expanded his preliminary injunction blocking the anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion policies across all federal agencies—not just the ones named in the lawsuit.
Supreme Court has a chance to address this problem
The Supreme Court faces a chance to rein in nationwide injunctions later this year. In Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop, justices may decide whether lower courts have overstepped their authority in halting federal policies.
The case centers on a Texas judge, Amos Mazzant, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who ruled that a federal law requiring businesses to disclose ownership information was unconstitutional. But Mazzant went further — he issued a nationwide injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law at all.
Just before Trump took office, the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reexamine Mazzant’s decision. While the merits of the case involve the Corporate Transparency Act, an anti-money-laundering law, experts say an outcome where the CTA is upheld could result in advising trial judges to issue more targeted orders that apply solely to the plaintiffs involved.
The push for legislative reform
In a statement echoing Alito’s concerns, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Washington Examiner the ability for a single district judge to “unilaterally micromanage the executive branch should raise eyebrows.”
“Both parties have raised serious questions about district courts’ use of temporary restraining orders and universal injunctions to issue sweeping, nationwide policy mandates, and I think Congress ought to closely examine the issue,” Grassley added.
Robertson, the law professor, told the Washington Examiner an easy solution could in the hands of Congress, such as with legislation requiring three-judge panels for plaintiffs in district court who are seeking nationwide injunctions.
“I think part of the issue is actually driven by the congressional gridlock we’ve seen on policy issues for the last 20 years,” Robertson said. “That has really pushed both Democratic and Republican administrations to do more by executive order and through administrative actions.”
Robertson’s proposal would mandate that cases involving nationwide injunctions be heard by a panel of two district judges and one appellate judge from the same circuit. The goal is to reduce the influence of outlier judges and make it harder for plaintiffs to pick judges in district courts that may be more prone to favoring them.
For example, the Fort Worth Division has two conservative judges, making it a prime venue for right-wing challenges to Democratic policies. In contrast, Portland, part of the District of Oregon, has six judges across multiple divisions, and its liberal-leaning judiciary makes it a favored venue for left-wing lawsuits against Republican policies.
“When a single judge can grant a nationwide preliminary injunction, it makes it easier for parties to identify the very few outlier judges who do rule more predictably,” Robertson said. A similar legislative approach has been floated by Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a staunch ally of Trump.
Both Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a ranking member of the committee, and Grassley have raised issues with nationwide injunctions and judge shopping. In April 2024, Durbin received calls from progressive groups urging him to use his oversight authority to address the issue.
Grassley told the Washington Examiner that he hopes “to explore the topic further through a future hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee,” and said he was “actively working towards a legislative solution.”
What comes next?
TRUMP BATTLES ‘FORUM SHOPPING’ AMID LIBERAL LAWSUIT SURGE
Legislative efforts remain uncertain. While proposals from both Robertson and Davis signal a possible fix to the bipartisan concern, past attempts, such as a Senate Democratic bill that would have randomly assigned cases, have stalled in Congress.
As Trump now faces over 100 lawsuits against his executive agenda, the fight over judicial power is far from over.