Do elections still matter, or are we living under judicial tyranny? That is the critical question as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments Thursday on the growing crisis of nationwide injunctions. These judicial orders, once rare and limited in scope, have exploded into a political weapon wielded by rogue district judges seeking to obstruct the America First agenda of President Donald Trump. The stakes could not be higher.
At issue is whether a single federal district judge—unelected and unaccountable to the nation as a whole—should be able to freeze critical national policies before courts even rule on their legality. Over recent years, activist judges in left-leaning courts like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have repeatedly issued sweeping nationwide injunctions against President Trump’s executive actions, including his day-one order attempting to clarify the original intent of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship.
The abuse of these injunctions is not lost on the Supreme Court, whose justices from across the ideological spectrum have sounded the alarm. Justice Clarence Thomas has described them as “legally and historically dubious” in the landmark Trump v. Hawaii decision. Justice Elena Kagan, no conservative herself, told a Ninth Circuit judicial conference, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
Indeed, these injunctions have become an epidemic, paralyzing executive action and undermining the fundamental principle of representative government. Solicitors General from both parties have condemned the practice. Even Joe Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, warned of “substantial disruption” to executive functions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris recently labeled nationwide injunctions an “epidemic.”
Nationwide injunctions routinely disrupt government operations. Different district courts can issue conflicting injunctions, creating legal chaos and making compliance virtually impossible. That’s exactly what happened in 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction blocking the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug. Just hours later, Judge Thomas Rice in the Eastern District of Washington issued a competing order—this one prohibiting the FDA from altering its approval of the same drug in half the country.
This kind of judicial activism does not just create confusion—it undermines the rule of law. Forum-shopping has become rampant, with activist plaintiffs deliberately filing lawsuits in jurisdictions known for hostility toward conservative policies. Predictably, during the Trump presidency, courts in blue states like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state produced most of these nationwide injunctions. Chief Justice John Roberts has warned against this manipulation, and members of Congress, legal scholars, and even the Judicial Conference have proposed reforms like random judge assignments. But such reforms only scratch the surface and fail to address the fundamental constitutional problem.
Article III of the Constitution clearly limits judicial power to resolving specific “cases or controversies.” It was never intended to allow a single district judge in one state to set national policy for the entire country. The lower courts were designed to serve specific geographic areas with limited jurisdiction—not to unilaterally block the President’s lawful policies nationwide.
The Supreme Court now has a historic chance to rein in this judicial overreach. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of our electoral system itself. If unelected, lifetime-appointed judges can nullify decisions made by the duly elected President chosen by the American people, then elections lose their meaning entirely.
The Court must act decisively to restore the proper balance envisioned by our Founders. If the justices allow these nationwide injunctions to continue unchecked, they would effectively rubber-stamp judicial tyranny and endorse rule by unelected judges.
The American people voted decisively for President Trump and his bold America First agenda: securing our borders, reviving American manufacturing, reforming unfair trade deals, and reasserting our sovereignty. They deserve to see this mandate fulfilled, not stymied by activist judges.
It’s time for the Supreme Court to remind rogue judges that elections matter—and that the American people, not unelected district judges, run this country.