Injunction Dysfunction
Republicans Discovered Nationwide Injunctions Are Bad... Only When They're Against Trump
Picture this: You're at a restaurant, and your friend orders dessert. When it arrives, they devour it happily. But when you order the exact same dessert, suddenly your friend declares it's terrible, unhealthy, and should be banned from the menu entirely. You'd probably think your friend was being a bit hypocritical, right?
Well, that's basically what's happening with conservative politicians and nationwide injunctions – those court orders that can block federal policies across the entire country. For years, Republicans cheered when judges used these tools to stop Democratic policies. But now that the same judicial weapon is being used against Trump's agenda, conservatives have suddenly discovered that nationwide injunctions are a grave threat to democracy.
Let me walk you through the most glaring examples of this flip-flop.
When Nationwide Injunctions Were "Victories"
During the Biden administration, conservative politicians couldn't stop celebrating when federal judges issued nationwide injunctions blocking Democratic policies. Take Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has become the poster child for this hypocrisy.
In January 2021, just three days after Biden took office, Paxton sued to block Biden's 100-day pause on deportations1. When Trump-appointed Judge Drew Tipton granted a nationwide injunction stopping the policy across the entire country, Paxton was ecstatic. "Within 6 days of Biden's inauguration, Texas has HALTED his illegal deportation freeze," he tweeted triumphantly2. "This was a seditious left-wing insurrection. And my team and I stopped it."
Paxton didn't just celebrate quietly – he bragged about building a "national coalition to stop Dems' unconstitutional actions"1. He explicitly touted this as part of his strategy to use nationwide injunctions to hamstring Biden's agenda before it even got started.
And it wasn't just Paxton. When Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall won a nationwide injunction blocking Biden's federal contractor vaccine mandate in December 2021, he declared it a victory over "President Biden's unlawful, unconstitutional, and un-American attempt"3. Republican lawmakers lined up to praise these sweeping court orders that blocked policies nationwide.
Conservative legal groups were in on the game too. Stephen Miller's America First Legal – the same Stephen Miller who now works for Trump – repeatedly requested and celebrated nationwide injunctions against Biden policies4. They claimed "AFL victories" when judges issued nationwide blocks on vaccine mandates, immigration programs, and other Democratic initiatives.
The Supreme Court's Convenient Timing
Fast forward to June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that severely limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions5. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that such broad orders "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
The timing here is pretty remarkable. The Supreme Court waited until a Republican was back in the White House before deciding that nationwide injunctions were suddenly a problem. As one legal expert noted, "the Republican-dominated Supreme Court waited until a Republican held the presidency before imposing these restrictions"6.
Trump immediately celebrated the ruling as a "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!"7 Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that "no longer can rogue, activist judges abuse their authority to dictate the executive powers of the President"8. The White House put out a statement calling it "a monumental victory for the Constitution"8.
But here's the thing – these same conservatives were perfectly happy with "rogue, activist judges" when they were blocking Biden's policies.
The Numbers Don't Lie
The statistical evidence makes the hypocrisy crystal clear. During Trump's first term, federal courts issued 64 nationwide injunctions against his policies9. Conservatives called this "judicial activism" and complained about "resistance judges."
During Biden's presidency, courts issued only 14 nationwide injunctions – less than a quarter of what Trump faced9. But when conservatives obtained those 14 injunctions, they were celebrated as victories for the "rule of law."
Now, in Trump's second term, he's already faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions in just a few months9. Suddenly, Republicans have discovered that this judicial tool is a threat to democracy.
The Congressional Response Reveals the Game
The clearest evidence of conservative hypocrisy comes from Congress. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who stayed silent when nationwide injunctions were blocking Biden's agenda, is now leading the charge against them. In April 2025, Jordan wrote to congressional appropriators asking them to defund courts that issue nationwide injunctions10.
"When a single district court judge halts a law or policy across the entire country, it can undermine the federal policymaking process and erode the ability of popularly elected officials to serve their constituents," Jordan wrote10. Funny – I couldn't find any evidence that Jordan ever made this argument when Biden was facing the same problem.
The House even passed the "No Rogue Rulings Act" in April 2025, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, which would restrict judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions11. The vote was 219-213, with Republicans arguing that these court orders represent "the worst kind of judicial activism"11.
But where was this concern about judicial activism when Judge Drew Tipton was blocking Biden's deportation moratorium? Where was this worry about democratic governance when Alabama judges were stopping vaccine mandates nationwide?
The Judge Shopping Problem
What makes this hypocrisy even worse is that conservatives have been systematically "judge shopping" – filing lawsuits in specific courts where they know they'll get friendly judges. Texas became notorious for this practice, with conservative groups repeatedly filing cases in courts like Amarillo, Texas, where Trump-appointed Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was the only sitting judge6.
Ken Paxton turned this into an art form, filing numerous lawsuits designed to get nationwide relief against Biden policies. As legal experts documented, "Texas has often been able to stall policy changes, foster confusion, and prevent the Biden administration from realizing its initial vision"6.
But now that the shoe is on the other foot, and liberal groups are seeking nationwide injunctions against harmful Trump policies, suddenly this practice is an unconscionable abuse of judicial power.
The Larger Pattern
This isn't just about legal technicalities – it reveals a broader pattern where conservatives treat legal principles as political weapons rather than consistent rules. When nationwide injunctions helped them, they were defending the Constitution. When the same tools are used against them, they're undermining democracy.
Legal scholar Steve Vladeck put it perfectly: there's a "completely shameless amount of hypocrisy" happening right now9. Trump and his allies are "decrying 'out-of-control' district courts — but celebrated their rulings against Biden."
The Supreme Court's decision to limit nationwide injunctions only after Trump returned to office just reinforces the appearance that these positions are driven by political convenience rather than principled legal reasoning.
What This Means Going Forward
The conservative flip-flop on nationwide injunctions has created a system where constitutional protection depends more on political timing than legal merit. The Supreme Court has essentially given Republican presidents a free pass to ignore court orders while constraining future Democratic administrations.
This hypocrisy doesn't just undermine public confidence in the courts – it reveals that for many conservative politicians, legal principles are just tools to be picked up or discarded depending on whether they help or hurt their political goals.
The next time you hear a conservative politician complaining about "activist judges" or "judicial overreach," remember Ken Paxton's celebratory tweets about nationwide injunctions. Remember Jim Jordan's sudden discovery that these court orders are problematic only when they target Republican policies.
Because if there's one thing this whole saga proves, it's that for too many right wing politicians, the only consistent principle is winning – regardless of what legal contradictions they have to embrace along the way.