Introduction

On April 1, 2025, Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, addressed the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the contentious issue of nationwide injunctions. These injunctions grant relief not only to litigants in a case but also extend it to individuals who are not parties to the litigation.

Understanding Nationwide Injunctions

Nationwide injunctions have become increasingly prominent in modern litigation, notably affecting policies across different presidential administrations. Statistical data reveals that their frequency has surged—six were issued during the Bush Administration, twelve under Obama, and as many as sixty-four in the first Trump Administration, followed by fourteen under Biden.

These injunctions are particularly troublesome both legally and politically, raising significant questions regarding their constitutional validity and implications for judicial and legislative authority.

The Legal Basis for Injunctions

Constitutional Framework

In examining the legality of nationwide injunctions, one must reference Articles I, II, and III of the U.S. Constitution, which delineate the powers of the legislative (Congress) and executive (President) branches, and outline the limited judicial powers vested in federal courts. This separation of powers indicates that only Congress possesses the authority to create laws applicable to the entire nation.

Article III specifies that the judicial power must address “Cases” and “Controversies,” emphasizing that courts only possess the authority to make determinations affecting the parties involved in a legal dispute.

Key Legal Precedents

Two key Supreme Court decisions, Williams v. Zbaraz (1980) and United States v. Mendoza (1984), underscore the limitations of judicial authority concerning nationwide injunctions. In Zbaraz, the Court ruled that a district court could not address issues not contested in the case at hand, thereby reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries of Article III.

Similarly, Mendoza established that a nonparty cannot invoke decisions made against the federal government in separate litigation, further stipulating that only Congress can extend the implications of a federal court’s judgment to a broader audience.

Policy Considerations

The issuance of nationwide injunctions raises concerns that go beyond legal technicalities; they bring forth a plethora of policy implications. Critics argue that allowing a single judge to create laws applicable on a national scale can lead to “judge shopping”—where litigants seek out favorable venues that might be more likely to issue such injunctions.

This phenomenon fuels perceptions of judicial politicization, where outcomes of politically charged cases may appear to align more with the persuasions of individual judges rather than the principles of law.

Conclusion

The practice of issuing nationwide injunctions without proper case certification as a nationwide class action is argued to be inconsistent with the Constitution and traditional legal principles. The separation of powers doctrine clearly assigns lawmaking prerogatives to elected officials, while the judiciary is limited to resolving disputes among parties. As the debate surrounding this issue continues, it remains likely that the Supreme Court will eventually address these concerns to clarify the legal standing of nationwide injunctions.