Hyperbole is Overblown
Segment #528
Data on district court injunctions, particularly "nationwide injunctions" which have been a point of contention, can vary slightly depending on the source and the methodology for counting. However, here's a compilation based on recent reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Harvard Law Review, which provide the most up-to-date figures:
George W. Bush (2001-2009): The Department of Justice identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued against his administration. A Harvard Law Review article (as of April 2024) identified 6.
Barack Obama (2009-2017): The Department of Justice identified 19 nationwide injunctions against his administration. A Harvard Law Review article (as of April 2024) identified 12.
Donald Trump (first term, 2017-2021): The Congressional Research Service identified 86 nationwide injunctions during his first term. A Harvard Law Review article (as of April 2024) identified 64.
Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett have recently made significant statements regarding the role and authority of district judges, particularly in the context of nationwide injunctions.1 These statements came in the wake of a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling on Friday, June 27, 2025, which significantly limited the ability of federal judges to issue such injunctions.2
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (in response/dissent):
Justice Jackson, in her dissent, expressed strong concerns about the majority's ruling and its implications for the rule of law and the power of the executive branch.3
She stated that the decision poses an "existential threat to the rule of law" by potentially allowing the executive branch to "violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued."4
Jackson argued that the executive branch's request to curtail "universal injunctions" is, "at bottom, a request for this Court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior."5
She further warned about "this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law... enabling our collective demise."6
Jackson emphasized that the ruling clears the path for the president to choose "law-free action" and that "Executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more."7
She has also criticized the Court for what she perceives as a willingness to rush to side with the Trump administration and a tendency to "fan the flames" rather than extinguish them when it comes to certain applications from the government, particularly concerning the "shadow docket."8
In previous dissents, she has also expressed concern about inconsistencies in the Court's application of standing precedent, suggesting an appearance of favoritism towards "moneyed interests" or the Trump administration.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett (in the affirmative/majority opinion):
Justice Barrett authored the majority opinion in the ruling, which curtailed the power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Her statements reflect a more limited view of judicial authority, particularly concerning the scope of injunctive relief.
Barrett's majority opinion stated that nationwide injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
She emphasized that "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history," suggesting that such broad relief is not historically supported.
The opinion underscored that "federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them."
Barrett also wrote, "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."
In her opinion, she directly addressed Justice Jackson's dissent, stating that Jackson "would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' That goes for judges too."9 She further characterized Jackson's position as "at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself."
Generally, Justice Barrett adheres to an originalist and textualist judicial philosophy, believing that judges should apply the law as written and not act as policymakers.10 This philosophy often leads to a more restrained view of judicial power and a focus on the specific parties and facts of a case, rather than broad, sweeping relief.
In essence, Justice Barrett and the majority view nationwide injunctions as an overreach of judicial power by district judges, preferring a more limited and historically grounded approach to equitable relief.11 Justice Jackson, conversely, sees the restriction of such injunctions as a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility that could enable executive overreach and threaten the fundamental principles of the rule of law.12