The Supreme Court’s Chance to Rein In Activist Judges and the Deep State

Five years ago, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, warned that the Supreme Court would eventually have to confront the growing problem of nationwide injunctions. That moment has now arrived.

In a concurring opinion, Gorsuch was blunt about the dangers of the practice:

“It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

What was once an emerging concern is now a full-blown crisis. Lower courts have turned nationwide injunctions into a political weapon, halting policies with a single judge’s order and creating legal whiplash as opposing rulings stack up across jurisdictions.

Ironically, President Trump—whose every major action seems to invite one of these sweeping injunctions—may benefit in the long run. The sheer volume of judicial blockades ensures that the Supreme Court will be forced to step in sooner rather than later. And when it does, the justices will likely have little choice but to rein in a practice that Gorsuch and Thomas saw as untenable from the start.