Trump and Biden find themselves unlikely allies in the battle to limit nationwide injunctions as federal judges increasingly block presidential policies from both parties.
Quick Takes
- Both Trump and Biden administrations have urged the Supreme Court to limit federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
- The Trump administration is facing multiple legal setbacks blocking key agenda items, with courts challenging immigration and spending policies.
- Republicans previously supported nationwide injunctions when they blocked Biden policies but now oppose them when they target Trump.
- The Supreme Court recently sided with Trump’s administration in a dispute over DEI-related education grants.
- Legal experts warn that ignoring court orders could trigger a constitutional crisis and grounds for impeachment.
Rare Bipartisan Agreement on Judicial Overreach
In a political climate where agreement between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is almost unheard of, their shared concern over the expanding power of federal judges stands out as a notable exception. Both administrations have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the authority of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions – court orders that can immediately halt government policies across the entire country. This judicial tool has been deployed with increasing frequency in recent years, creating significant obstacles for presidents of both parties trying to implement their agendas.
Democrats have been crying foul for YEARS on nationwide injunctions—but now they're using them to stop Trump's agenda in its tracks
The double standard is glaring
Let's return our courts to the Constitution and BAN nationwide injunctions pic.twitter.com/IW1z5uXk5Z
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) April 2, 2025
Sarah Harris, representing the Trump administration before the Supreme Court, recently argued that “This court should declare that enough is enough,” highlighting the frustration within the executive branch over judicial interference. This sentiment echoes similar arguments made by Biden administration lawyers during the previous presidency, who also sought to curtail the growing influence of nationwide injunctions that repeatedly blocked key Democratic policy initiatives.
Trump’s Legal Battles Test Constitutional Boundaries
President Trump’s administration is currently grappling with a series of court orders that have stalled or completely blocked significant portions of his agenda. These legal setbacks are impacting his plans to reshape the federal government, end birthright citizenship, and control federal spending. The situation has become so contentious that some Trump allies have begun questioning whether the administration should simply ignore unfavorable rulings – a potentially dangerous path that would challenge America’s fundamental system of checks and balances.
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered a stark warning about the consequences of such defiance, “To willfully ignore the courts could be grounds for impeachment in my judgment – or at least public condemnation and congressional censure.” Gonzales further emphasized the judiciary’s constitutional role, noting, “The courts decide ultimately what is illegal or unconstitutional, not the vice president or president. The courts have the final say as to what is the executive’s legitimate power.”
Shifting Political Stances on Judicial Authority
One of the most notable aspects of the nationwide injunction debate is how political attitudes have shifted based on who occupies the White House. When Biden was president, Republicans enthusiastically supported conservative judges issuing nationwide injunctions to block Democratic policies on issues ranging from student debt relief to immigration enforcement. Now that Trump is back in office, Republicans have suddenly become vocal critics of these same judicial tools when they target Republican initiatives.
This apparent hypocrisy isn’t limited to one side – Democrats who previously criticized nationwide injunctions during the Biden administration now find themselves supporting judicial intervention against Trump’s policies. Legal experts describe nationwide injunctions as “equal opportunity offenders” that ultimately impact presidents of both parties, suggesting that a more principled approach to judicial reform might better serve the country than partisan flip-flopping.
Recent Supreme Court Victory for Trump
Not all legal battles have gone against the Trump administration. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Trump in a dispute over the Department of Education’s freeze of DEI-related grants, allowing the administration to keep $65 million in grants frozen. This decision came over a strong dissent from Justice Elena Kagan, who criticized the Court’s swift intervention without thorough briefing or argument, calling it a “mistake” based on “barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection.”
Despite heated rhetoric, the Trump administration has thus far followed legal norms by appealing adverse decisions rather than defying them outright. Judge Richard Sullivan emphasized the gravity of attacking the judiciary, “Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously.” As these battles continue, Americans across the political spectrum are watching closely to see whether our system of checks and balances will withstand the pressure.
Sources:
As judges stymie Trump with injunctions, pressure builds on U.S. Supreme Court
White House officials bristle as the courts throttle parts of Trump’s agenda
Supreme Court sides with administration over Education Department grants
