Lawfare and the Myth of the Universal Injunction
How Some Federal Judges Overstep Their Bounds
In recent years, a powerful but constitutionally dubious tactic has emerged from America’s courtrooms: the universal injunction. On the surface, it sounds authoritative—almost benevolent. A judge issues an order, and like the hand of God, it ripples across the entire nation, halting federal policies and rewriting rules for millions. But behind this sweeping judicial power lies a simple truth: there is no legal, constitutional, or historical basis for such rulings. These are not lawful commands—they are political tools dressed in black robes.
What Is a Universal Injunction?
A universal or "nationwide" injunction is when a federal district court issues an order that doesn't just apply to the parties in the case—but to everyone in the country. Imagine a single judge, presiding over a courtroom with two plaintiffs, deciding a matter that affects 330 million people. That’s the essence of the universal injunction.
And yet—this concept doesn’t exist in any statute. It doesn’t come from the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has never authorized it. It’s a legal invention with no birthplace, no blueprint, and no boundary.
The Cross-Examination That Said It All
In a recent Senate hearing, a stunning exchange unfolded between a U.S. Senator and a government witness. The Senator’s line of questioning pierced through the veil of legitimacy like a hot knife through butter:
Is there a statutory basis for universal injunctions?
“No, Senator.”Has the Supreme Court ever interpreted the Constitution to allow them?
“I’m not aware of one.”Did English common law—the foundation of American jurisprudence—permit such sweeping remedies?
“I don’t believe so, Senator.”
Not only is the universal injunction not in the Constitution or U.S. law, it is foreign to the very legal traditions America was built upon. Historically, courts offered equitable relief only to the individuals before them—not to the world at large.
A Tool of Politics, Not Justice
So why do district judges do it?
Because they can—or at least, no one has stopped them. The courts claim it’s necessary to block federal policies from taking effect while lawsuits play out. But this legal shortcut bypasses fundamental safeguards, such as the class action mechanism, which was specifically designed to represent groups beyond the named parties—if legal requirements are met.
The truth is that plaintiffs often can't form a class. They fail to meet the rigorous criteria of Rule 23. So instead of following the rules, they shop for a sympathetic judge and request a nationwide injunction—knowing that if they win in just one courtroom, they can stall or dismantle national policy.
This kind of forum shopping turns the judiciary into a battlefield. Instead of letting laws rise or fall through democratic or constitutional processes, lawyers weaponize the courts—lawfare—to obstruct, delay, and subvert.
The Trump Test Case
Consider this: only 27 universal injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century. But against President Trump during his first term? Over 80. Thirty more followed in the early years of his second term. Whether you love or loathe Trump, the math is staggering—and troubling. The law hasn’t changed. The Constitution hasn’t been rewritten. What’s changed is how judges interpret their own power.
Universal injunctions have morphed into blunt instruments against disfavored administrations. This isn’t jurisprudence. It’s judicial activism at a scale the Founders would never have sanctioned.
The Illusion of Legitimacy
Federal courts derive their power from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which grants them the authority to decide “cases and controversies”—disputes between parties. It says nothing about creating binding law for people who aren’t in the courtroom.
If a judge wants to affect more than just the parties in front of them, the proper vehicle is a class action. Congress designed it. Rule 23 outlines it. It requires due process, representation, and rigorous proof. It is, in the Senator’s blunt but accurate phrasing, “why God created class actions.”
The Verdict
The universal injunction is not law. It’s legal theater.
It wears the costume of justice while violating its core tenets. It substitutes personal ideology for constitutional fidelity. It undermines the separation of powers, and it encourages strategic manipulation of the judiciary.
Lawfare, at its core, is the use of legal means to wage political war. Universal injunctions are its nuclear option—an invalid and unenforceable ruling masquerading as authority.
What’s needed now is clarity—and courage. Congress must act to rein in this abuse. The courts must return to the boundaries the Constitution sets. And the American people must realize: when judges leave the law behind, they don’t deliver justice—they destroy it.
