Supreme Court to weigh power of judges as Trump faces wave of nationwide injunctions

Supreme Court to weigh power of judges as Trump faces wave of nationwide injunctions

Nationwide injunctions—sweeping rulings by individual judges that apply across the country—have emerged as one of the most significant legal barriers to US President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. With 17 such injunctions issued as of March, federal courts have curtailed major policies ranging from immigration enforcement to federal funding restrictions, prompting the administration to push back—and the Supreme Court to prepare for a defining decision on the practice, the New York Times reported.

The court will hear arguments Thursday in a case challenging Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship. Three judges previously issued nationwide injunctions to block that order, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could redefine the extent to which federal judges can impose such sweeping limits on executive power.

Judicial pushback on immigration and funding policies

One of the most consequential injunctions came from Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of California, who blocked the administration’s attempt to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. His March 31 ruling halted the revocation nationwide. When the Ninth Circuit Court declined to lift the order, the administration petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief. The justices have not yet acted, and the Department of Homeland Security has said it plans to proceed “as soon as it obtains relief from the court order.”

Another major roadblock came from Judge Loren L. AliKhan in Washington, D.C., who barred the administration from cutting off billions in federal funds to states. Trump’s Office of Management and Budget had issued a memo to freeze the spending, but AliKhan ruled that neither the memo nor any similar directive could be used to halt funding. A second ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island similarly blocked the funding cut—but limited its scope to 22 states that had joined the lawsuit. The administration is appealing both decisions.

Education policy halted nationwide

In April, three more judges—in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.—intervened to block the Trump administration’s move to eliminate federal funding for public schools with diversity and equity programmes. Their coordinated rulings issued injunctions that apply nationally, effectively tying the hands of the Education Department in all 50 states. The administration has not yet appealed those rulings.

A test of judicial authority

Trump’s legal team has argued that these nationwide injunctions amount to judicial overreach—allowing a single judge to halt a policy nationwide, even in jurisdictions not directly involved in a lawsuit. The administration hopes the Supreme Court will seize the birthright citizenship case as an opportunity to curtail or restrict judges’ ability to issue such broad rulings.

But for now, nationwide injunctions remain one of the few effective tools for opponents of Trump’s agenda to stall or reverse sweeping federal policies. The coming decision from the Supreme Court could determine whether that continues.