Trump administration challenges judicial power over policy injunctions

The Trump administration has raised concerns about the power of judges to issue universal injunctions that can block presidential actions nationwide. This situation emerged after several federal judges issued orders preventing the administration from implementing policies, such as curtailing birthright citizenship and halting deportations. Universal injunctions allow judges to prevent government actions not just for the parties involved in a case but for everyone. Such injunctions became more common during Donald Trump's presidency, particularly coming from judges nominated by Democrats. In February 2025 alone, courts issued 15 universal injunctions, more than were seen during the first three years of Joe Biden's presidency. The administration argues that these injunctions overstep judicial authority and create a constitutional crisis. Critics of the universal injunctions, including some Democrats, see them as necessary checks on presidential power. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin stated that the judiciary is fulfilling its role in overseeing the executive branch. The Supreme Court has so far avoided addressing the broader questions surrounding universal injunctions, even as they face mounting challenges. Some Justices have expressed concerns about a single judge having such extensive power over government actions. Justice Samuel Alito criticized a recent ruling that allowed a district judge to compel significant government spending without thorough consideration. As frustration grows among Republicans, they are looking for ways to limit the use of universal injunctions. Proposed legislation aims to restrict district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions beyond the original parties. Some Republicans are also considering impeachment for judges they believe have overstepped their bounds. The debate continues, with both sides accusing the other of trying to manipulate the judicial system for political gain. The Supreme Court is expected to hear responses from plaintiffs involved in ongoing birthright citizenship cases by early April 2025, which may provide further clarity on these legal issues.