Hey, back the f-ck off!

Not you Mr President. I'm talking to the appointed guy in the Black robe.

May It Displease the Court

Anti-Trump lawsuits are thrusting judicial power into the spotlight, provoking a showdown.

By Kimberley A. Strassel, WSJ

March 19, 2025 1:21 pm ET

Injunction Junction

The only folks getting as much attention these days as Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the federal judges blocking Trump actions. The pitch reached a new level when the administration over the weekend seemed to ignore Judge James Boasberg’s oral order that it turn around planes deporting alleged gang members to El Salvador. The snub comes in the wake of a growing pile of court orders that freeze or undo Trump policy, provoking GOP calls for judicial impeachments or legislation restricting judicial power.

Republicans are steamed in particular that liberal judges are more aggressively issuing “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions—orders that bar the government from enforcing a law, regulation or policy against anyone, not just the specific parties to a case. Conservative scholars view them as judicial overreach, while liberals insist they are a necessary restraint on Trump power. The issue is rapidly reaching a head as the administration formally asks the Supreme Court to clarify injunctive power, while Republicans mobilize to take action in Congress. To dig in:

The numbers: Universal injunctions are a relatively new thing—and mostly a Trump thing. Former Attorney General William Barr noted in 2019 that there were “only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.” While they’ve grown in the past 25 years, a 2024 Harvard Law Review article explains that the entirety of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies, as well as the first three years of Joe Biden’s, counted just 32 nationwide injunctions combined. By contrast, Trump was subject to 64 in his first term, while a recent DOJ filing says courts issued “15 universal injunctions (or temporary restraining orders) against the current Administration in February 2025 alone.” (There have since been more.) The Harvard articles notes that 92% of the first-term Trump injunctions were “issued by a judge appointed by a Democrat.”

Pro: The Obama and Biden administrations both opposed injunctions against their own actions, but that’s long forgotten by Democrats and a media that now insist injunctions are a vital (potentially the “only”) check on the executive. Supporters also claim that universal injunctions reduce litigation and make it more efficient, though the current tidal wave of litigation against this administration (some of it duplicative) isn’t helping that position. Other liberal scholars argue that universal injunctions are the only way to provide relief to all those injured, including those who lack the resources to file litigation.

Con: Conservatives argue judges lack the power to provide relief to individuals who are not party to a case—and point to the near absence of universal injunctions for most of the country’s history as evidence of a long-established view. That power allows one judge to dictate policy for the country, and to micromanage an elected executive branch. The practice also encourages “forum shopping” (note how many cases opposing Trump are being filed in blue states), and it shuts down debate across the circuits, sometimes forcing the Supreme Court to address an issue before it has been fully argued. While most conservative jurists hold these views and generally refrain from universal injunctions, not all do. All of the 14 national injunctions issued against Biden in his first three years came from judges appointed by a Republican.

GOP meltdown: The Trump administration has largely abided by the orders and injunctions, working through the appeals process. (The deportations flap hinged instead on a dispute over whether the judge’s oral orders applied, or whether his reach extended into international airspace.) But Trump on Tuesday unloaded on Boasberg, calling him “crooked” and arguing he should be “impeached.” House Republicans are already filing impeachment resolutions against different judges—with encouragement from Musk— while Utah Sen. Mike Lee is pushing legislation that would restrict national injunction power to three-judge panels.

High Court fiddling: Trump’s tirade against Boasberg prompted a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” True, and wise; impeachment has been reserved for clear cases of judicial corruption. But the high court also deserves some criticism for failing to play any meaningful role in reining in injunction abuse—despite pleas from its own members. Justice Clarence Thomas in a 2018 concurrence warned that universal injunctions were becoming a scourge, and that the court was “dutybound” to adjudicate their authority. Justice Neil Gorsuch repeated that message in a 2020 concurrence, while Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, recently issued a blistering excoriation of a judge’s restraining order concerning the payout of U.S. Agency for International Development funds.

The Department of Justice is now directly asking the Supreme Court to engage by staying recent universal injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. It pleads: “This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.” The court would do everybody a favor by finally issuing guidance on national injunctions, which might serve to short-circuit congressional action and cool temperatures. Though by waiting so long to address the question, any court ruling now will be viewed in the context of the current political uproar.

Lesson: Tough issues rarely get easier to solve over time.