Below is my column in the Hill on the continuing confusion over national or universal injunctions. The last week has shown that this chronic injunctivitis must end.Here is the column:
This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration.
The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I have called “chronic injunctivitis” is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy. For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures. Any one judge can halt the entire government.
Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law. Kagan lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.”
In his first term, Trump faced a more than 450 percent increase in the number of such injunctions over the number issued under Obama — a rise from 12 to 64. The number then went down to just 14 under former President Joe Biden. With Trump back in office, district courts have now outstripped that record and may surpass the total from the first term in the first year.
However, when the pending case came up before the Supreme Court on one of the Trump injunctions, Kagan suggested that this was “different,” because Trump was clearly wrong. In oral argument, Kagan snapped at the Solicitor General: “Every court is ruling against you.” It was a curious point coming from a justice who had previously acknowledged that challengers were forum-shopping by going to favorable judges, as with the current cases coming out of largely blue states.
Kagan did not explain where the line should be drawn, leading to speculation on when something would be viewed as “just sorta wrong” or “really, really wrong.”
This week, the Supreme Court enjoined the Maine House of Representatives from denying State Representative Laurel Libby her right to speak and vote on the floor. In an outrageous action, the Democratic majority had effectively taken Libby’s constituents hostage by telling her that, unless she apologized for identifying a transgender athlete in public comments, she could not vote. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to lift the ban, with Kagan joining the more conservative justices.
However, in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who has favored the injunctions in the Trump cases) stressed that there was no need for an injunction here because there were no “significant legislative votes scheduled in the upcoming weeks” or where Libby’s lack of a vote would “impact the outcome.”
It again left many scratching their heads on what Jackson would consider a “significant vote.” Moreover, thousands of Maine residents have been denied representation on the state House floor. That would seem significant even if the justice did not find certain bills to be sufficiently weighty.
These different approaches only deepen the uncertainly over the standards for lower courts.
Just in case the Supreme Court doubted the need for greater clarity on the use of these injunctions, Boston District Judge Myong J. Joun, perfected the record this week.
The Biden appointee had just been reversed by the Supreme Court last month when he issued a temporary restraining order for the Trump Administration to pay out frozen grants worth more than $65 million. The administration had raised questions about the basis for the grants and ordered a review.
Usually, a temporary order freezes the parties from changing the status quo to allow for review. It is difficult to appeal such an order, and the parties generally wait for a couple of weeks to seek review after the court issues a preliminary injunction.
But Judge Joun wanted to use the temporary restraining order to force the payments to happen, changing the status quo permanently. This did not seem like temporary relief, since money is not likely to come back after it is paid out.
This week, Joun was back with another injunction. This time he enjoined an effort of Education Secretary Linda McMahon to initiate a reduction-in-force and prepare for the potential elimination of the Department of Education.
Despite the false claims that Trump’s underlying executive order actually shut down the department, it stated that McMahon should, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
While Joun admits that this was not a department shutdown, he still enjoined these efforts in an 88-page decision full of sweeping, dramatic language that sounds more like a policy paper than a restrained judicial order.
The court simply declared that even a reduction in force would make it “effectively impossible for the department to carry out its statutorily mandated functions.”
Many on the left again celebrated a judge effectively micromanaging the executive branch. Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, even seemed to add a threat — that “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory.”
Insurrection aside, it is clearly time for the Supreme Court to do something about this.
Despite a majority of justices harrumphing for years about these injunctions, lower court judges continue to issue them with abandon. In the meantime, presidents like Trump are looking at two years of litigation before they can make meaningful changes, including downsizing the government.
For the Supreme Court, it has become madness as emergency motions pile up every morning after executive programs are frozen overnight.
The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity and tell them not to call you in the morning.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School, where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
I thought you might enjoy some actual news rather than Turley’s daily dose of propaganda.
JD Vance has often claimed to be of “Scottish–Irish” descent but research paid for by the Democratic Unionist Party in the north of Ireland failed to find any link.
The DUP, a party historically tied to British nationalism and loyalism, had reportedly wanted to present Vance with a 24-page dossier titled “The Family Footsteps of JD Vance” , celebrating his Northern Irish heritage during a visit to the US for St Patrick’s Day, in March.
But a Freedom of Information request, put in by The Times, showed that researchers hired by the project had “run into the proverbial brick wall” confirming that “it has not been possible to establish conclusive proof of a direct Vance link back to Ulster at this stage.”
In contrast, Obama’s maternal great-great-great grandfather was from County Offaly in Ireland.
He also has living relatives in Ireland.
So Obama is more Irish than JD Vance.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So what? Are you ignoring the most loathsome parts of obama’s history to attempt to besmirch Vance. How typically dem of you. Rather than ancestry, I would rather compare lifestyles. ideology and (let’s not forget obama’s communist mentor and islamic father) compare which has done more harm to this nation. typical deflection tactic from the insipid left.
Yet, you offered zero proof.
Total fail!
https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/jd-vance-scots-irish-family-history-682pjm5j5
https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/jd-vance-irish-heritage-scottish-35284198
“Mussolini made the trains run on time” – but most Americans don’t support those foreign models of government like fascism or dictatorship.
American voters elect presidents to solve problems within the U.S. Constitution and within federal law! Most voters don’t favor authoritarian models of government like communist regimes or fascist regimes.
Trump could reach his goals faster by following the American model, working through constitutional due process. If Trump has good reform ideas it would be easy for him to get there legally instead adopting foreign models governance!
If Americans want a lawless Mussolini type leader – that same lawless leader could (and likely will) seize your 2nd Amendment gun rights, women’s voting rights and religious rights.
LOL The dems will not work together with Pres Trump or the GOP…
Jezzzzzzzzz
“If Americans want a lawless Mussolini type leader…”
They’d vote for totalitarian Soviet Democrats like Bolshevik Barack and VP Bribery Biden.
But wait! You want to assure us that both of them followed the American model! Especially when Bolshevik Barack carried out his threat to replace the Legislative Branch with his phone and pen.
tiQ tiQ tiQ tiQ
NWSWIC
Judicial/Legislative branches are fully bought/compromised/corrupted.
Suspend Habeas Corpus NOW…
NG/Marines are the only way..
We are with you Sir.
@RealDonaldTrump
MAGAA1st
11b
Suspend habeas corpus? When the Dems come back into power, guess who they’ll be coming for? You’d give up your most basic individual right for short-term political advantage? Myopic in the extreme.
What was the status of habeus corpus during our last civil war (and don’t be deceived by the MSM and academia, we ARE in a civil war, and have been since the late 40s. The difference only being that in 1865 we shot traitors and now we have prog judges killing our constitution.
The Republicans do have the votes to rein in the lower courts but they will have to eliminate the filibuster. They just cannot seem to comprehend that they could really reform the federal government almost immediately if they removed the filibuster.
The Supreme Court cannot alone eliminate this problem because they have no teeth to enforce it. District Courts and Courts of appeals, I have no doubt, would ignore the rules and keep on doing what they are doing.
1-the Supreme Court needs to be more decisive in it’s decision instead of literally splitting hairs and just guaranteeing more cases.
2-pick up the pace from glacial slowness to just deliberate and remove the injunctions quickly because the litigants here really want the injunction more than a real trial. They want delay and not resolution.
3-Congress also must act to limit the injunctive process of the district courts and circuit courts by specific rules as when to use and set for the teeth to enforce it.
4-In order to remove a federal judge you must impeach them. I wonder if congress could move to suspend for a set duration of time but without impeaching, at least for district courts and court of appeals. An abbreviated hearing in the house could be empowered (by law) to do the suspending.The Senate confirms the judge’s appointment, the House should slap the offending hand (by law of course). I don’t see anything in the constitution that prevents suspension of a judge only removal.
The birthright citizenship case could resolve this. The Court should decide that an injunction against the defendants may only be as wide as necessary to prevent the alleged irreparable harm to the plaintiffs before them.
This would still permit wide junctions in two circumstances:
1. Where a class had been properly certified; and
2. Where an injunction only in favor of a plaintiff would not prevent all of the harm to that plaintiff. That is what the state plaintiffs argued here — that unless the injunction applied nationwide, people would flow into their states to take advantage of benefits not available to them in places where they were being denied citizenship improperly.
The administration conceded both these points in principle during oral argument but denied that they applied here. If the Court established these rules, then significant limits would be placed on nationwide injunctions, whatever the outcome of applying them to this or any other particular case.
When Trump’s attorneys know that something is blatantly unconstitutional. In premeditated manner they are defrauding American taxpayers. You and me (taxpayers) are paying for Trump’s frivolous lawsuits.
Trump’s attorneys should reimburse the U.S. Treasury for knowingly violating established precedent and ignoring court orders.
If the U.S. Supreme Court sent the bill for court fees to the attorneys themselves (personal bank accounts of the attorneys) the injunctions would stop and taxpayers would no longer be fleeced by the Trump Administration.
Attorneys actually have laws, licenses and ethics standards to uphold regardless of a current president’s ethics. Lawyers can be disbarred from practicing law.
I understand why you want to be anonymous.
And what’s your reason?
So is your real name Skeptic???? Just wondering
“And what’s your reason?”
Sea-lioning
Sea-lioning is a type of malicious trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless questions, requests for evidence, etc, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
It appears the blindfold has come off and the scales have been broken in our justice system!
The Professor’s coined term “chronic injunctivitis” appears to be related to the medical malady “conjunctivitis,” where the tear ducts malfunction and the eyes become welded shut. Leftist district court judges, their legal vision corrupted by cerebral bias, seem to suffer from both conditions…, but with lifetime “good behavior” tenure, just don’t care. Unlike the vision-impairing medical condition, Professor Turley’s condition seems clearly to constitute not only “bad behavior,” but “stupid behavior” as well.
Impeachment remains in the toolbox.
2 years from now
a Supreme Court justice can be removed from office, but only through a very specific process: impeachment and conviction by Congress. The House of Representatives initiates the impeachment process, and the Senate holds the trial and decides on a conviction. A conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
I know. I know.
Such elegant simplicity.
But like our first socialist President declared, the world is moving too fast now for this archaic document to be relevant. We need professionals.
Haste makes waste.
These “professional experts” are hasty to change the rules as necessary and even hastier to impede when someone questions them.
we don’t even need the UN or any other presidents, prime ministers, or dictators….some random judge in California or NY will just issue edicts for the WORLD TO FOLLOW!
The US justice system is DEAD!
The idea that every person involved in prosecuting Trump at any level aren’t all in jail…shows the level of COMPLETE corrupt of the system!
A state AG oversees Trump being fined $500 Million for paying back a $200 Million Dollar Loan?
A 3 year investigation of Hillary’s Russian Hoax…knowing day 1 was a HOAX?
I want people executed for TREASON/Sedition…this can’t continue…and I don’t want DEMOCRATS releasing THEIR CRIMINALS
I actually want the Democrat Party Abolished for their 2nd Civil War
And I want lots of AGs, DAs and Judges jailed…..they don’t even pretend to follow the laws or neutrality
at least somebody’s honest about how they feel about what’s been happening. Extreme as this may sound to some, if we were 150 years ago, these would all be plausible solutions. It’s amazing what comfort can do to the mind.
One of the solutions to these district courts is to dissolve that district. The executive branches within their power to do so. There would definitely be wailing & gnashing of teeth should that happen & would only slow them down and probably not be effective. If Soros & his crew are the head of the snake, then we need to deal with it or it will continue.
Spoken like a true fascist.
In the immortal words of Susan Wild (D-PA) “Do what you know is right and let the law catch up to you.” When she uttered those words she never imagined that Trump would be the one deciding what is “right”.
President Trump should ignore any orders that would change the status quo. Why should the slow process strip power from the Executive branch? Instead, leave intact Executive authority and the Legislative branch can use their authority to remove a tyrant pending a SCOTUS ruling.
A 450% increase in presidential lawbreaking = 450% increase in injunctions!
If Trump started following the law and decades of court cases there would be “0” injunctions.
If a future president revoked 2nd Amendment gun rights (illegal act) or revoked women’s voting rights (illegal act), should such illegal acts be allowed or should such illegality be approved by U.S. Supreme Court?
Trump simply needs to start following the law and Constitution!
Bless your heart. It’s going to be OK.
And therein lies the issue.
Trump is following the Constitution – not the “rule of law” as envisioned by progressives.
And yes, put enough progressives in charge and they will openly flaunt the Bill of Rights instead of merely handcuffing it as they have been doing for many decades now!
“The Justices MUST…”?
Turley has apparently failed to comprehend what he has been witnessing. A majority of SCOTUS justices (appointed by Presidents from both parties) are currently in the process, conscious or not, of abdicating the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court. My prediction is that, in regard to appeals of Joun’s orders, or anything else of truly Constitutional significance brought before it, the Court, led by the truly spineless and feckless John Roberts, will find ways to continue to punt on all of the most crucial cases. Barring some miracle that gets Roberts deposed and replaced as Chief by either Thomas or Alito, the Supreme Court along with the rest of the Federal judiciary, has now become superfluous to any shred that may remain of our Republic. There is also the issue of a complete disconnect by a large(at least) segment of the Federal judiciary on the subject of enforcement. If these fools seriously expect (for a current example) that the Federal Marshall’s office of Pam Bondi’s DOJ is going to enforce any adverse injunctive order against the executive in the person of Donald Trump, they must be getting high on the intestinal fumes emanating from under their own robes.
It seems clear to me that the only way the court can rectify the situation is to assume the responsibility of more default review action. I know the legal requirements are not the same, but in the case of a state suing another state, that case can immediately be advanced to SCOTUS without undergoing the review process. I believe the recent case that was handled in that manner was the state of Texas suing the state of Michigan? In any case, just as the federal court system (in effect) works on behalf of SCOTUS–filtering out constitutional law questions long before they need to be considered for placement on the SCOTUS docket–it would also seem that any injunctive power used against the administrative branch of government stands as an action of a representative of SCOTUS, creating an immediate conflict between separated powers.
In such cases, given the gravity of the power of the lower court injunctions, it behooves SCOTUS to afford immediate review to the administrative branch of our government. If circuit court judges knew that their injunctions would be immediately reviewed by SCOTUS, I believe that the prospect of being immediately slapped down in final review would serve to dissuade individual circuit courts from attempting to adjudicate national policy from their local benches. Go ahead and let the circuit courts impose injunctions without limitation, but create something called the “Roberts Rule” that requires immediate, even emergency review to see if a stay of that injunction is warranted. this will mean more immediate on demand work for SCOTUS on cases that might normally be filtered out before they ever reach SCOTUS. But SCOTUS needs to acknowledge now that their branch of government has essentially become hostile to the administration, while essentially carrying out their hostile actions under the grand cloak of authority of SCOTUS. I predict that if Chief Justice Roberts were to implement such a rule, it wouldn’t take very long for circuit court judges to reign themselves in.
The abuse of the TRO and PI process by the Federal Judiciary is in fact a clear and present danger to the Constitutional Republic. The use of Courts to direct Public and Foreign Policy that for nearly 250 years has been an Executive and Legislative Branch function is by definition a Judicial take over of Governance. No Judge should have the Power to direct the expenditure of Public funds (in several cases clearly in conflict with their spouses or friends involvement in that expenditure). No Judge should have the Power or authority to direct the Executive Branch in Foreign Policy to include Immigration Policy. The blatant Kagan Rule from the Obama Era to her complete reversal in the Trump Era is evidence this is the Judicial Coup we think it is………..
“Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions.”
Mr. Turley is being very politically correct in this article. I fixed it for him though.
Justices have only worsened the condition with UNCONSTITUTIONAL and at times OVERTLY POLITICAL opinions.
Sometime, I believe, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets her legal opinions rulings from the other customers at the beauty salon. However, at least everyone knows how she will vote. It is some of these more conservative justices that flit around like drunken flies looking for justice in ways akin to others reading their daily horoscope. Yes, some of them practice astrological law, an old, old practice still taught in elite law schools.
Actually it is sad we always know where all three liberal female justices will vote. It shows their votes are always purely political and not constitutional. And Sotomayor and Brown have now come right out and said just that recently, exposing the truth about the liberals on the Court.
“Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,” she said. “But right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight.”
No your job is to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. Fighting for lost causes is not your job.
This new definition of their job, “Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves….” is a result of the left taking over the law schools (as well as the J schools and the med schools).
Sotomayor is the worst justice in my lifetime and Jackson Brown is hot on her heels. Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and sometimes even Gorsuch are just feckless wishy washy weaklings. Especially Roberts and Barrett.
Very well said.
Your comment smells like dead fish. You right, your not a lawyer, so don’t try lawyering here. Ok?
Congress created the district courts, it can delete them. Maybe it is time to correct their mistake.
If you are a lawyer you are probably a lousy one given your poor grasp of our language. You need to work on your contractions.
How many illegals did Obama deport?
During his two terms, President Obama oversaw approximately 5.3 million deportations of illegal immigrants, earning him the nickname “deporter-in-chief.” The highest annual deportation numbers occurred in his early years, with over 400,000 deportations in fiscal year 2012 alone. However, specific national injunctions explicitly citing “lack of due process” in the context of deportations are less commonly documented compared to broader challenges against specific programs like DAPA.
How many of those deportations resulted in nationwide injunctions to stop the deportations?
During President Obama’s eight years in office, there were several significant legal challenges related to immigration policies, particularly concerning deportations.
As of late April 2025, there have been at least 25 nationwide injunctions related to President Trump’s actions, including those affecting deportation orders.
Your comment smells of partisan dead fish.
“Your comment smells like dead fish.”
At least his comment demonstrates some literacy in the English language…
One does not be a lawyer to understand the constitution, nor does one need to be one to smell the rat of progressive political partisanship that has tainted our government since Thoreau first opined on Walden Pond.
Not a lawyer, but it seems that if SCOTUS were to severely rein in the district courts that would do more to preserve judicial power and prestige than if Congress were to address the problem with legislation.
I would prefer the latter. Limiting district court decisions to a single litigant and specifying a process of referral up the chain with only SCOTUS having the authority to rule on executive branch policy and actions.
Not holding my breath waiting for congresscritters to do their jobs
Congress won’t do anything because the Democrats can’t see down the road to someday when conservative judges populate most benches and the Republicans don’t have the votes to do it alone.
If Trump is successful and another Republican can win two terms, that would be 12 years of Republican rule. Look at the ages of most of these judges, many in their 80’s and 90’s. The district courts would be completely flipped.
Ending these universal injunctions would be wise for both parties. Are the Democrats intelligent enough to see that? I don’t think so.
$37T in debt! The USSR went broke surprising everyone living there!
That would reset the courts if it happened in the US!
At least SCOTUS proves that DEI is a failed theory!
When were the dems smart enough to make any wise decision???