Judicial Despotism: How to End Nationwide Injunction Abuse
Democrats are attempting to win in court what they lost at the ballot box. But their strategy abuses the legal system and upends the Constitution. Here's what to do about it.
by Rod D. Martin
February 14, 2025
Democrats spent the last decade telling us that “democracy is on the ballot”, scaremongering about the threat Donald Trump supposedly posed to voters having a say over their fate.
Ironic, then, that now out of power, those same Democrats are using every means available to thwart those same voters. This includes the overwhelmingly-Democrat bureaucracy authorizing expenditures the President has ordered stopped — like the $59 million FEMA tried to pay luxury hotels to house illegal aliens last week, now clawed back by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
This blatant insubordination can be dealt with (though prior Republican Presidents, including Trump 1.0, rarely did). Insubordination is grounds for firing. A recent poll may have found that 42% of Deep State bureaucrats intend to “resist” the elected President, but the joke’s on them: Trump will wield the axe they’ve never before had to fear. He already is.
Of course all of that raises the question as to why the duly elected President would need “grounds” to fire anyone. Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is perfectly clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Not “independent agencies”, not career Deep Staters, and certainly not the other branches of government. Why even bother to have elections at all if the people elected are prevented from doing their jobs?
But you know the answer: “Our Democracy”, that most cherished of ideals, really just means “rule by Democrats”. Nearly the whole bureaucracy is Democrats, so they must be free to do whatever Democrats want. Elections are irrelevant if the people “get it wrong.” And how could they be more ignorant and more wrong than by voting against Democrats?
Which of course brings us to the federal courts.
The American Republic was not designed to be ruled by a clique of unelected judges. Courts are very pointedly not legislatures, and are prohibited from exercising legislative or executive powers. Their job is to call balls and strikes, within the confines of the Constitution. They are not to join the game, or rewrite the rules.
But why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of “progress”?
For years now, radical Democrat-appointed judges have transformed the judiciary into a weapon of mass obstruction, deploying nationwide injunctions to paralyze the executive branch and nullify presidential authority. These injunctions — legal orders issued by a single district judge that block federal policies from being enforced anywhere across the country — are an innovation of the modern left, a judicial coup designed to neutralize Republican administrations before they can govern.
And big shocker: no president has suffered more from this abuse than Donald J. Trump.
During Trump’s first term, activist judges issued more than 64 nationwide injunctions — more than were issued against any prior administration in history. These judges struck down executive orders on immigration, energy, deregulation, and national security, effectively rewriting federal policy from the bench. The attitude was clear: whatever a Democrat president does must stand forever, even if the electorate chooses a different path.
Now, in Trump’s second term, this obstruction has reached new extremes. A judge in Maryland and another in Washington enjoined his executive order on birthright citizenship before it could even be enforced. Another judge forced the administration to reinstate a Biden-era official in the Office of Special Counsel, overriding Trump’s appointment power. A Washington judge ruled that Trump had to restore Biden-era transgender propaganda to the FDA and CDC websites. Yet another ordered the executive branch to restore federal funding to Biden programs Trump had lawfully defunded. And in perhaps the most egregious example, a single district judge blocked the Senate-confirmed Treasury Secretary from accessing his own department’s financial records.
I kid you not.
This is not law — it is rule by judicial fiat. Worse still, seen as part of the bigger whole, it is an effort by Democrats to maintain their control over the country no matter what the voters have to say.
The Rise of the Nationwide Injunction Scam
The Founders would have been horrified by the idea that one unelected judge could dictate national policy. Article III courts were established to resolve disputes between specific parties, not to issue sweeping, nationwide decrees that override the elected branches of government. Yet, in the last few decades, nationwide injunctions have metastasized into a tool for leftwing control, allowing activist judges to shut down entire policy agendas with the stroke of a pen.
There is no constitutional basis for this practice. Historically, injunctions have been quite limited in scope. The Supreme Court itself has never endorsed the idea that a single district judge should have the power to impose a universal legal rule on the entire nation. Justice Clarence Thomas has explicitly warned that nationwide injunctions have “little foundation in historical practice” and that they “raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.”
Yet the abuse continues — because it serves the Democrats’ agenda.
Judicial Tyranny and the Assault on Article II Powers
The problem extends beyond mere policy obstruction. It’s an outright usurpation of Article II executive power. Judges are not simply ruling on the legality of specific executive actions; they are preemptively blocking the president from exercising his constitutional authority.
Consider the Biden administration’s reaction when faced with a similar situation. When Judge Carl Nichols issued a temporary restraining order against the Biden administration for attempting to realign USAID personnel — which in my view he should not have done — the then Democrat-led Department of Justice responded with outrage, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction over routine executive personnel decisions.
The hypocrisy is glaring. When a Democrat president asserts executive authority, judicial interference is an outrage. But when a Republican president exercises the same power, judges rush to enjoin him at every turn. The Deep State protects its own.
The Real-World Consequences of Judicial Overreach
The unchecked power of rogue district judges is not just a theoretical concern; it has tangible, catastrophic consequences for governance. When a single judge can freeze a policy nationwide, it does not simply delay implementation: it effectively nullifies the policy entirely.
Take the travel ban case. A district judge in Hawaii shut down the entire program with a nationwide injunction. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor, months had passed, and the executive order had been functionally neutered. The same tactic was used against Trump’s efforts to tighten asylum procedures, alter the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and build the southern border wall. These injunctions allowed activist judges to impose de facto open-border policies while the administration was forced to slog through endless legal battles.
To these activists, elections simply do not matter.
This is how Democrats keep power when they lose. They use the courts as their fallback legislature, obstructing conservative governance through endless litigation and nationwide decrees. It is judicial sabotage disguised as legal oversight.
Add to this the unaccountable, heretofore unfireable Deep State bureaucracy, and it’s a wonder any Republican President ever gets anything done at all.
A Constitutional Solution: Ending Nationwide Injunctions
This crisis demands an immediate fix. Nationwide injunctions must be abolished or, at the very least, severely restricted. There are several ways to attack this:
Congressional Action – Congress has full authority to limit the jurisdiction of lower courts. It should immediately act to prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions against federal policies. Judges should be restricted to ruling on the cases before them, not imposing broad legislative-like mandates.
Judicial Reform – If that seems too much, another solution would be for the Supreme Court to require that any nationwide injunction against the executive branch be approved by a panel of at least three district court judges rather than just one. This would introduce an additional layer of scrutiny and reduce both forum shopping and the ability of unelected partisan activists to dictate national policy.
Expedited Supreme Court Review – At the very least, any nationwide injunction against the executive branch should be automatically and immediately appealable to the Supreme Court. This would prevent the legal limbo that currently allows bad-faith injunctions to stall policies for months or years before being overturned.
Executive Resistance – Finally, the President should be prepared to challenge illegitimate rulings and refuse to comply with judicial overreach. Andrew Jackson famously defied the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia, stating, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Trump, too, must be willing to assert executive authority against unconstitutional interference. The three branches are pointedly co-equal: they each have power to enforce the Constitution, even against each other.
Conclusion: Restoring the Rule of Law
The judiciary was never meant to function as an unelected, unaccountable super-legislature. Yet that is precisely what it has become, thanks to the weaponization of nationwide injunctions. Democrats have discovered they can paralyze Republican presidents by funneling lawsuits through handpicked activist judges who will reliably issue sweeping, legally dubious injunctions freezing executive action.
This judicial lawfare is not just a procedural abuse — it is an actual constitutional crisis. It must be resolved.
It is time to strip the courts of their illegitimate veto power over the executive branch. The Constitution does not grant district judges the authority to rule the country by decree. It is time to put an end to this judicial coup and restore the rightful balance of power in our Republic.
And if Republicans fail to address this now, every future conservative administration will be shackled before it ever takes office.
Here's a thought: create a new lower court (call it the Court of Fast Appeals of Federal Overreach, or FAFO), staff it with five very young MAGA judges, and have all political injunctions reviewable immediately by FAFO, with appeals to SCOTUS by certiorari.
I suggest you expand on #2 and #5 and detail how Chief Justice John Roberts, who runs the federal judiciary, can de-politicize the courts and restore the public's faith. For some reason, he always escapes accountability.