Senators Speak Out Against Federal Judges and Nationwide Injunctions
Senator John Kennedy has recently spoken out about what he sees as judicial overreach by federal judges, highlighting concerns over their increasing role in shaping national policy through nationwide injunctions. In response, Senator Chuck Grassley has introduced legislation aimed at curbing this judicial practice, which he argues has been used excessively to obstruct executive actions.
Judicial Overreach and Nationwide Injunctions
A nationwide injunction is a legal order issued by a federal district judge that halts the enforcement of a law or policy across the entire country, not just within the jurisdiction of the case at hand. Critics, including Kennedy and Grassley, argue that these injunctions go beyond the intended role of the judiciary and improperly expand the power of individual judges to set nationwide policy.
According to a statement on Grassley’s Senate.gov page, the use of nationwide injunctions has escalated dramatically in recent years, particularly during President Trump’s administration:
“These nationwide injunctions have become a favorite tool for those seeking to obstruct Mr. Trump’s agenda. More than two-thirds of all universal injunctions issued over the past 25 years were levied against the first Trump administration.”
Grassley’s statement also points to the rapid increase in such judicial orders, noting that in just the past two months, federal judges have issued at least 15 nationwide injunctions against the administration—more than the total 14 issued during President Biden’s entire four-year term.
The History and Constitutional Debate
The use of nationwide injunctions is a relatively modern legal phenomenon. Legal scholars have found little evidence of their existence before 1963, meaning this judicial tool has only gained prominence in the past few decades. Yet, its impact has been significant, allowing a single district court judge to effectively halt federal policies for the entire country.
Critics argue that this practice undermines the constitutional separation of powers. Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants the judiciary authority over individual cases and controversies—not the ability to make policy. Grassley and Kennedy warn that if left unchecked, the widespread use of these injunctions could allow unelected judges to dictate national policy, bypassing the legislative and executive branches.
“Political and fiscal implications aside, district judges’ abuse of temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions is unconstitutional. Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving ‘cases’ and ‘controversies,’ not making policy.”
Additionally, these legal rulings have placed significant strain on the judicial system. By allowing plaintiffs to strategically choose specific courts and judges that are more likely to rule in their favor—often called “forum shopping”—critics argue that the system is being manipulated for political ends rather than legal fairness.
Real-World Consequences
Beyond constitutional concerns, the overuse of nationwide injunctions has had direct financial consequences for American taxpayers.
Grassley pointed to a recent case in which a Biden-appointed judge in the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a Trump administration decision to pause certain U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds. TROs are meant to temporarily maintain the status quo while legal proceedings continue, yet in this instance, the order would have resulted in the immediate distribution of $2 billion in taxpayer money—mostly to organizations that were not even part of the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court eventually stepped in, directing the judge to clarify the order, preventing the unnecessary expenditure. However, Grassley argues that this case illustrates how federal judges wielding nationwide injunctions can make high-stakes decisions with sweeping national and financial consequences.
Grassley’s Proposed Legislation
To address these concerns, Grassley has introduced a bill aimed at limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. His proposal seeks to ensure that district courts can only rule on the specific cases before them, rather than issuing broad, nationwide orders that effectively act as legislative or executive actions.
Supporters of the bill argue that such a reform is necessary to restore balance among the branches of government and prevent the judiciary from becoming a political weapon. However, critics counter that these injunctions serve as an essential check on executive overreach, preventing potentially unconstitutional policies from taking effect nationwide.
The debate over judicial power, constitutional authority, and the role of federal courts in shaping national policy is likely to continue, but with mounting concerns over judicial overreach, Grassley’s bill represents a significant effort to rein in the influence of individual judges over national policy decisions.
