During his first term, Trump faced 64 nationwide injunctions — more than double the total orders against the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations combined, according to Fox News.
federal workforce. A federal judge temporarily barred
the administration from firing 11 CIA and other intelligence officers linked to diversity and inclusion programs. Then on Feb. 27, U.S. District Judge
Anthony Trenga reversed his injunc- tion, permitting firings under national security authority. At a hearing in Alexan-
dria, Virginia, Trenga stat- ed that intelligence agency employees have limited legal recourse if officials fire them for national interest, regardless of their tenure. In 2018, a court struck
down Trump’s executive orders overhauling civil ser- vice rules, ruling that the president “exceeded his authority” by undermining federal employees’ col- lective bargaining rights. This decision was vacated by the
TRENGA
nationwide injunctions when they do not strictly bind other federal district courts? In practice, a lone judge can issue
a nationwide injunction that effec- tively halts a federal policy across all states. Critics argue that Democrat- leaning judges are using this exces- sively against Trump’s agenda, block- ing policies. Trump’s administration
contends that federal dis- trict court judges should not wield such broad reach.
SHOPPING FOR JUDGES In an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, acting Solicitor General Sarah Har- ris wrote that federal judges
have “no authority to issue sweeping orders” blocking policies nationwide. Any injunction, she suggested,
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2019 due to jurisdictional issues. Former President Joe Biden later rescinded Trump’s executive orders. However, Trump has indicated plans to rein- state similar policies during his sec- ond term. Each time, Trump and his allies
decried what they see as unelected judges overstepping their role and thwarting the executive branch. At the heart of the dispute is whether
a single federal district court’s order can have a national effect even though other federal courts are not bound by it. Legally, a ruling by one district
judge does not create a binding prec- edent for other courts. Such decisions are considered persuasive authority — other judges may take note of the rea- soning but are not required to follow it. If true, how enforceable are these
should apply “only in the geographic district where the judge is located — or only to the specific individuals or groups that sued.” Supporters of this view argue that
if one judge can freeze a policy every- where, it short-circuits the normal legal process and invites forum shop- ping by policy opponents seeking a friendly court. The U.S. Constitution’s Article II
vests “the executive power” in the pres- ident and obligates him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This has been interpreted to grant
the president broad control over feder- al agencies and enforcement actions. Advocates of a strong unitary execu- tive argue that the president holds sole authority over the executive branch, a view the Supreme Court has affirmed by stating that “the entire ‘executive power’ belongs to the President alone.”
SECOND-GUESSING POLICY In practice, however, the president’s power over the administrative state is not absolute. Congress creates fed- eral agencies, funds them, and limits their actions. Longstanding laws and civil ser-
vice rules also constrain a president’s ability to hire, fire, or direct federal employees. Trump insists judges should not second-guess policy decisions entrust- ed to the executive branch. He argues that nationwide injunc-
tions allow a single judge to obstruct policies set by his administration. His allies contend that the surge in nationwide injunctions is driven by partisan opposition. They note that an outsized number of these orders against his administration came from judges appointed by Democrat presidents. During his first term, Trump faced
64 nationwide injunctions — more than double the total orders against the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations combined, according to Fox News. Trump frames the issue as a separa- tion-of-powers imbalance. “Years of experience have shown
that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presi- dential action everywhere,” Harris wrote on behalf of the administration. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley,
R-Iowa, introduced the Judicial Relief Clarification Act aimed at limiting lower courts from issuing universal injunctions. This legislation seeks to prevent such courts from obstructing executive actions that affect nonpar- ties and to make temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the government subject to immediate appeal. Article III of the Constitution
requires the judicial branch to resolve “cases” and “controversies,” not make policy, Grassley said in a press release.
Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.
MAY 2025 | NEWSMAX 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
