Despite their political differences, both Republican President Donald Trump and former Democratic President Joe Biden have found rare common ground: curbing the expanding power of federal judges to issue sweeping injunctions that block government policies across the entire country.
Each administration has independently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rein in judges’ ability to impose so-called nationwide—or “universal”—injunctions. These orders can freeze executive actions well beyond the plaintiffs involved in any single lawsuit.
“This Court should put a stop to it,” urged Sarah Harris, acting solicitor general under Trump, in a March 13 Supreme Court filing defending his executive order aimed at limiting automatic birthright citizenship.
Just weeks earlier, on New Year’s Eve, Biden’s top lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, echoed similar concerns in a bid to revive an anti-money laundering statute stalled by a judge. She warned the justices that these broad orders are causing “serious disruption.”
The authority of a lone judge to issue a national freeze has become a major battlefield over Trump’s capacity to swiftly enforce his hardline agenda—much of which pushes the envelope of presidential power. A number of cases centered on such injunctions are already before the Supreme Court or making their way there.
“These orders frustrate every president—Democrat or Republican—because they significantly restrict executive authority,” explained Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia who studies judicial interventions.
Momentum is building on both Capitol Hill and within the judiciary to curb the use of universal injunctions. On March 20, Trump labeled the current situation “toxic” and pressed the Supreme Court to step in.
Trump and his allies have increasingly criticized judges who have stalled his key executive orders—including efforts to fire career civil servants, defund federal programs, dismantle diversity initiatives, close agencies, ban transgender people from military service, and target those he deems adversaries.
One flashpoint came when Trump demanded Congress impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for halting the rapid deportation of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang ties, after Trump invoked a rarely used 1798 law. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a rare public defense of judicial independence in response. Tensions escalated further when Boasberg, on Thursday, suggested that the Trump administration had defied his ruling.
The use of nationwide injunctions remains a deeply divisive topic among legal scholars.
Traditionally, injunctions are tailored to protect the individual plaintiffs who bring a case. But universal injunctions go further, applying broadly and preventing the government from enforcing contested policies against anyone, not just the suing parties. Judges often argue that such expansive remedies are necessary to prevent widespread harm or ensure legal consistency nationwide.
Both sides of the political aisle have criticized this judicial tool, arguing that it undermines fair litigation and injects partisanship into the court system. Yet when in opposition, both parties have used these injunctions to rein in what they see as presidential overreach.
According to Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck, federal district courts have issued injunctions or preliminary rulings—both broad and narrow—in 69% of cases where plaintiffs requested such measures since Trump resumed office in January.