Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Limit Nationwide Injunctions From Activist Judges

The Trump administration is taking a major stand at the Supreme Court this week not just for birthright citizenship reform, but to finally rein in activist judges who have spent years weaponizing the courts to stall the president’s America First agenda.

In Trump v. Casa, the Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to limit the power of district judges to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions sweeping rulings that halt executive orders not just for the plaintiffs in a case, but for the entire country.

“These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II,” Solicitor General John Sauer argued in a recent filing.

The case centers on Trump’s executive order to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals present in the U.S. on a temporary basis. But the broader legal battle is over who gets to decide national policy the elected executive or a single, unelected federal judge in a courtroom far removed from public accountability.

The DOJ revealed that 35 out of 39 universal injunctions against the Trump administration came from just five liberal districts Massachusetts, Maryland, D.C., Northern California, and Western Washington exposing the Left’s clear strategy of judge-shopping to sabotage conservative policies.

“They just shop for the favorable forums in order to drag the executive branch’s policies to a halt,” a senior DOJ official said. “It was devastating for Trump’s ability to effectuate the agenda he was elected to do.”

The Trump DOJ is asking the Court to narrow the three injunctions blocking the birthright citizenship order to only apply to the plaintiffs involved restoring the legal standard that held for 170 years of American jurisprudence.

Legal scholars like Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation say the case is a defining moment for the balance of powers.

“The fact that they scheduled oral arguments on this case past their usual deadline tells you the importance that the Court is attaching to this,” von Spakovsky said.

He pointed to the 1984 ruling in U.S. v. Mendoza, where the Court held that a judgment against the federal government could not bind it in future cases involving different parties. If that principle is upheld, it would be a seismic shift away from the judicial overreach we’ve seen since 2017.

The Left has used these nationwide injunctions like blunt instruments to block Trump’s border enforcement, to derail immigration reform, to halt deregulation, and now to stop a lawful executive order redefining citizenship in line with the Constitution. The courts have become their last line of defense against accountability, elections, and constitutional limits.

A ruling in favor of the Trump administration would deliver a long-overdue check on rogue district courts, returning lawmaking to Congress and executive power to the president where it belongs. But a loss? It would be open season for partisan legal warfare from the bench.

“If the government loses this issue, it’s like opening the gates to a rock concert and letting the crowd just rush in without tickets,” von Spakovsky warned.

Make no mistake: this case isn’t just about one executive order. It’s about the future of constitutional governance in America. President Trump is fighting for the right to do the job the voters elected him to do without a handful of radical judges holding the entire country hostage.

Share this with someone who still believes in separation of powers and the rule of law. Subscribe to our newsletter for more critical updates on the legal battles shaping our future.