In the American system of government, power is divided among three coequal branches to ensure that no single entity wields excessive authority. However, in recent years the Judiciary—specifically U.S. District Courts—has increasingly overstepped its constitutional bounds by issuing nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch.

This disturbing trend threatens to undermine the separation of powers and thwart the will of the American people. It is time to rein in this judicial overreach before it plunges the nation into an unmanageable constitutional crisis.
The numbers alone paint a troubling picture. During George W. Bush’s presidency, district courts issued 12 nationwide injunctions. That number increased to 19 under Barack Obama and spiked to 28 under Joe Biden. However, the most egregious case of judicial obstruction occurred under President Donald J. Trump, who faced an astonishing 86 nationwide injunctions in his first term. The problem persists in his second term, with 15 injunctions issued against him within just the first two months. These statistics expose the judiciary’s increasing willingness to intervene in policy decisions rightfully reserved for the Executive Branch.

At the heart of this issue is the unchecked ability of a single district judge to impose a nationwide policy freeze, effectively overriding the decisions of a duly elected president. How can a lone judge in an obscure courtroom anywhere in the country dictate national policy? This is not what the Framers intended. The U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President, who is accountable to the electorate. When courts intervene in this manner, they override the democratic process and disenfranchise millions of voters who elected a president to enact a specific agenda.

This abuse of judicial power is further compounded by the practice of “judge shopping,” whereby political opponents strategically file lawsuits in districts where they are likely to find sympathetic judges. This tactic has been weaponized against Mr. Trump and would be used against any president whose policies opponents seek to block. And such is an affront to the rule of law and an exploitation of judicial discretion that must be curtailed.

One possible remedy lies with Congress. Since district courts are created under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to define their jurisdictional boundaries. In theory, Congress could pass legislation prohibiting district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. However, given the political polarization in Washington and the likelihood of a Senate filibuster, this legislative approach would be a lengthy and messy endeavor.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a more immediate and effective solution. Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Foley points out that under the Rules Enabling Act of 1934, SCOTUS has the power to “prescribe general rules of practice and procedure” for the federal courts, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). While Rule 65 of the FRCP permits district courts to issue injunctions, it is vague or silent regarding the geographic scope of those orders. The Supreme Court can—and should—amend this rule to prohibit or at least severely limit the use of nationwide injunctions. And it can do so unilaterally.

Failure to take action will create a dangerous precedent in which the Executive Branch is perpetually hamstrung, unable to govern effectively. It is time for all who value the separation of powers to demand an end to this judicial overreach. The Judiciary must not be allowed to usurp the role of the Executive and dictate national policy from the bench.

In the latest dust up between Mr. Trump and a district court judge, Mr. Trump and others suggested that these “rogue” judges be impeached. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts retorted that the “normal appellate” procedure was the only proper way to air a disagreement with a judge’s decision.

Well, yes and no. One can waste time with appeals but only clearly defining and curtailing the scope of district court injunctions will end this nonsense. The Supreme Court has the tools to restore balance. It must act now to prevent further erosion of our constitutional system and the integrity of the courts.

Gary Wisenbaker is a REALTOR© with Century 21 Realty Advisors and can be reached at gary50155@gmail.com and (912) 713-2553