The Trump administration faces an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions, with federal judges issuing against both Trump administrations – more than half of all such orders in U.S. history. These rulings, often from single district judges, have frozen policies ranging from immigration enforcement to economic regulations.

—

### 1.
– The (introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa) would strip individual district judges of the power to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, only three-judge panels could grant such relief, reducing partisan forum-shopping.
– Congress could also , relying on its Article III authority to set jurisdictional limits for lower courts.
– Historical precedent supports this approach: In the 1970s, Congress required three-judge panels for abortion-related cases to prevent???????.

—

### 2.
– Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have repeatedly criticized nationwide injunctions as unconstitutional power grabs. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), Thomas warned: “If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality”.
– The Court could rule that to block policies beyond the parties in a case, reverting to traditional limits on judicial power.
– Data shows 68.7% of injunction requests against Trump policies succeeded in district courts, compared to just 14 against Biden over four years – highlighting systemic imbalance.

—

Nationwide injunctions enable activist judges to paralyze presidential agendas through “government-by-lawsuit.” With 92.2% of anti-Trump injunctions issued by Democrat-appointed judges, the process has become nakedly political. Unless Congress or the Supreme Court act, this tactic will remain a weapon for sabotaging conservative policies.