The Supreme Court’s ruling last week barring federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions deserved the attention it received. In the large scheme of things, it was very big deal. It dealt a blow to anti-Trump interest groups that thought they had figured out a way to block the enforcement of Trump initiatives across the country.
So they brought lawsuits challenging Trump policies in particular jurisdictions where there were judges who had previously ruled against the Trump position on similar issues. They also asked the presiding judge – usually successfully – to issue an injunction barring enforcement until the case was finally decided. Also, not unusual.
However, despite the fact that district court judges typically issue rulings that only apply to the particular litigants in his or her court, the anti-Trumpers generally also asked the judge – again, usually successfully – to also grant the injunction nationwide applicability. This effectively derailed the Trump initiative until the case was finally decided, usually several years later – and despite the fact that there had not yet been a final decision on the merits.
It was this legal legerdemain that the Supreme Court has now disallowed, holding that district judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions.
To be sure, individuals could still seek injunctive relief in the course of their own litigations. But the bootstrapping has now become a thing of the past and has dramatically changed the role of the judiciary in how and whether President Trump goes about meeting his policy goals.
