Is there ANY rationale that allows ANY district judge - heck, any of hundreds of judges - to simply pipe up and say, sorry Trump, you can't do that, I'm gonna put a pause on that -- ?
I don't think so ... and this has been a problem, some rando District judge thinks they have authority over actions of the Federal Gov
"Extreme forum shopping"
Morley said a single judge's power to enter a nationwide injunction incentivizes "extreme forum shopping," in which plaintiffs strategically bring their case in a specific court before a judge who will be most favorable to their arguments.
"There are outlier judges on all sides," he said. "You can go to that outlier judge and are systematically having the most controversial, cutting-edge, hot-button constitutional issues being settled and resolved by the ideological outliers rather than a more representative cross section of the judiciary."
In fact, the examination of nationwide injunctions published in the Harvard Law Review found that 92% were entered by judges appointed by Democratic presidents during the Trump administration. For the Biden administration, that portion grew to 100% imposed by judges named to the federal bench by Republican presidents.
"If you see that kind of pattern, it cannot help but call the judiciary into disrepute," said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "It doesn't look like they're applying the law in a clear way. It will erode the judiciary's legitimacy, no question about it."
Bagley, who
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about these injunctions in 2020, pointed to one key factor behind their rise: Politics.
Courts have over the past few years become the arena for hashing out high-profile political disputes, as congressional gridlock puts pressure on the president to take executive action to implement his policy agenda, Bagley said.
When presidents try to act unilaterally in "unusual or aggressive ways," he continued, "there's a ripe opportunity for a lawsuit, and if you're bringing one of these lawsuits, you're going to do your damndest to bring it in front of a friendly forum."
A judge who is more receptive to the challengers' arguments, he said, may come to see a nationwide remedy as the more appropriate means of reining in a president.
"It's a combination of a bunch of factors coming together: congressional sclerosis, presidential adventurism and judicial excessiveness," Bagley said.
how do district court judges have authority to issue nationwide injunctions
District court judges in the United States have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions based on their inherent powers under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary and grants it the power to decide "cases" and "controversies." This authority is further shaped by statutory jurisdiction, precedent, and the equitable powers of federal courts.
Here’s how it works:
- Jurisdiction and Equitable Powers: Federal district courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear a wide range of cases involving federal law, constitutional issues, or disputes between parties from different states. As courts of equity, they have long-standing authority to issue injunctions—orders that direct a party to do or refrain from doing something—to remedy harm or prevent irreparable injury. This power traces back to English chancery courts and was inherited by the American judicial system.
- Scope of Relief: When a district judge finds that a law, regulation, or executive action violates the Constitution or federal law, they can tailor the remedy to fit the scope of the harm. If the harm extends beyond the plaintiff in the case to a broader population—say, a federal policy affecting people nationwide—the judge may conclude that a nationwide injunction is necessary to provide "complete relief." This isn’t explicitly written in a statute but flows from the court’s discretion to craft equitable remedies.
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Many nationwide injunctions arise in cases challenging federal agency actions under the APA. The APA allows courts to "set aside" agency actions that are unlawful or arbitrary. While it doesn’t explicitly authorize nationwide relief, courts have interpreted this power broadly. For example, if a regulation is deemed invalid, a judge might vacate it entirely—not just for the plaintiff—effectively halting its enforcement everywhere.
- Precedent and Practice: The use of nationwide injunctions has grown over time, though it’s not new. Historical examples include injunctions against federal policies during the New Deal era. Modern cases, like those blocking immigration policies (e.g., Trump’s travel ban in 2017 or Biden’s vaccine mandates), show how judges use this tool when they see a policy as uniformly illegal or unconstitutional. Critics argue this stretches judicial power, but supporters say it’s a logical extension of a court’s role to check executive overreach.
- Limits and Controversy: There’s no formal limit stopping a district judge from issuing a nationwide injunction, though higher courts—like the Supreme Court or circuit courts—can stay or overturn them. The Supreme Court has expressed skepticism about their overuse, notably in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where Justice Thomas criticized them as historically rare and potentially abusive. Still, no binding rule prohibits them, so judges retain discretion unless Congress or the Supreme Court steps in.
In short, district court judges derive this authority from their broad equitable powers, statutory interpretation, and the practical need to address widespread harm. It’s a debated practice—some call it judicial overreach, others a vital safeguard—but it’s grounded in the structure of federal courts.