INJUNCTION DYSFUNCTION OR TYRANT DISRUPTION? Trump-Era Judicial Paralysis Explained.

Can a single judge unilaterally thwart the president of the United States?

That’s the contentious question the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve last week in response to court orders blocking its effort to curtail birthright citizenship, and after a slew of decrees requiring the president do everything from halting major actions on DEI and domestic spending to disbursing billions in foreign aid.

At issue is a legal remedy, universal injunctions, that allows any of the nearly 700 federal judges to prevent the president from enforcing policies not only against those bringing a case but anyone, everywhere. Universal injunctions were rare until the first Trump administration, when their usage exploded as Democrats and progressives turned to the courts to block many of his policies.

In the early days of Donald Trump’s second administration, courts have issued such injunctions at a historic pace and with growing potency, notably over the weekend with a suspension in deportations of Venezuelan gang members without a hearing. During the month of February alone, district court judges, most nominated by Democrats, ordered 15 such injunctions – more than Joe Biden faced during his first three years as president. Courts from Washington, D.C., to Washington State have issued injunctions in “epidemic proportions,” now not only governing “the whole nation” but “the whole world,” the administration says.

The injunctions come in response to the 100-plus lawsuits that, critics argue, blue states, progressive nonprofits, and ex-government officials have deliberately brought before sympathetic judges – a tactic known as “forum shopping” or “judge shopping” that both parties have employed.

Read the whole thing.

Related, from Glenn at his Substack: Trump and the Lower Courts. Some thoughts about what he’s doing and what he might do.