Contents

• Background and Methodology
• Table of Cases
• Considerations for Congress

Summary

In recent years, litigation over actions of the federal executive branch has prompted discussion of the authority of federal courts to halt or prevent the enforcement of executive branch policies. One particular focus of this discussion is nationwide injunctions—court orders against the government that prevent the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy against all relevant persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.

Several sources provide counts of nationwide injunctions. As of February 2020, the Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump Administration up to that point. In April 2024, the Harvard Law Review published an article with counts of nationwide injunctions through 2023. With respect to the four most recent presidential Administrations, the article identified 6 nationwide injunctions issued under the George W. Bush Administration, 12 under the Obama Administration, 64 under the first Trump Administration, and 14 from the first three years of the Biden Administration. A March 2025 CRS report identified 86 nationwide injunction cases from the first Trump Administration and 28 from the Biden Administration.

This CRS report identifies nationwide injunctions issued during the first hundred days of the second Trump Administration, between January 20, 2025, and April 29, 2025. For several reasons, it is not possible to provide a single definitive count of nationwide injunctions. Most significantly, nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise definition, so counts may vary based on the particular definition used. In addition, there are practical challenges in searching for all nationwide injunction cases as well as methodological choices about how to count the injunctions that fit any given definition. This report explains CRS's methodology for identifying nationwide injunction cases and includes a table listing 25 cases identified using that methodology. It then discusses selected considerations for Congress related to nationwide injunctions.

In recent years, litigation over actions of the federal executive branch has prompted discussion of the authority of federal courts to halt or prevent the enforcement of executive branch policies. One particular focus of this discussion is nationwide injunctions—court orders against the government that prevent the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy against all relevant persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.¹ Commentators, judges, lawmakers, and executive branch officials debate whether and when it is appropriate for a court to enjoin a government action in its entirety, with some arguing that nationwide injunctions are rarely or never appropriate, while others defend the practice.² In March and April 2025, the executive branch filed pleadings in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to restrict lower courts' issuance of nationwide injunctions.³ Some Members of Congress have also introduced legislation that would limit nationwide injunctions.⁴

Several sources provide counts of nationwide injunctions. In a May 2019 address, then-Attorney General William Barr stated that federal courts "issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century."⁵ By contrast, as of February 2020, the Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump Administration up to that point.⁶ In April 2024, the Harvard Law Review published an article with counts of nationwide injunctions through 2023.⁷ With respect to the four most recent presidential Administrations, the article identified six nationwide injunctions issued under the George W. Bush Administration, 12 under the Obama Administration, 64 under the first Trump Administration, and 14 from the first three years of the Biden Administration.⁸ A March 2025 CRS report identified 86 nationwide injunction cases from the first Trump Administration and 28 from the Biden Administration.⁹

This CRS report identifies 25 nationwide injunctions issued during the first hundred days of the second Trump Administration, between January 20, 2025, and April 29, 2025. It then discusses selected considerations for Congress related to nationwide injunctions.

Background and Methodology

An injunction is a form of equitable relief¹⁰ by which a court either requires an entity to take a certain action or forbids an entity from taking a certain action.¹¹ A nationwide injunction is generally defined as an injunction against the government that prevents the government from implementing a challenged law, regulation, or other policy against all relevant persons and entities, whether or not such persons or entities are parties participating in the litigation.¹² A March 2025 CRS report identifies and analyzes nationwide injunctions issued during the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration.¹³ As discussed in more detail in that report, there are several reasons why it is not possible to provide a single definitive count of nationwide injunctions. Most significantly, nationwide injunction is not a legal term with a precise definition, so counts may vary based on the particular definition used.¹⁴ In addition, there are practical challenges in searching for all nationwide injunction cases¹⁵ and methodological choices about how to count the injunctions that fit any given definition.¹⁶

When compiling the list of nationwide injunctions in this report, CRS:

• included only injunctions issued by federal courts;
• included only injunctions against the federal government or federal officials, not injunctions that bind states, state officials, or private parties;
• excluded class actions certified at or before the time of the injunction's issuance;¹⁷
• excluded injunctions that combine with one or more other injunctions to block a government action in its entirety but that, standing alone, do not do so;
• excluded injunctions that block a government action in its entirety with the exception of limited carveouts to defer to other courts;¹⁸
• included all forms of injunctive relief that bar the government from enforcing a policy, such as temporary restraining orders (TROs), preliminary injunctions (PIs), injunctions pending appeal, and permanent injunctions;¹⁹ and
• excluded stays and vacatur of agency actions unless the agencies were also expressly enjoined from implementing the stayed or vacated actions.²⁰

To compile the table of cases in this report, CRS searched federal cases in Westlaw for the search terms (("nationwide" OR "nation-wide") w/3 injunction) for the date range January 20, 2025, through April 29, 2025. CRS then manually reviewed results to find cases that fit the criteria outlined above. In addition, CRS reviewed news reports about nationwide injunctions and third-party websites tracking litigation against actions of the second Trump Administration²¹ and included cases that fit the criteria above but did not show up in the Westlaw search. Due to the lack of standardization in nationwide injunction cases, it is possible that there are other cases that fit this report's criteria for inclusion but were not identified via CRS's methodology. Moreover, because litigation related to implementation of executive branch policies is rapidly developing, courts could have issued additional nationwide injunctions after CRS completed its searches.

For purposes of this report, CRS counted nationwide injunctions by case. Each case (or set of consolidated cases) in which at least one nationwide injunction was issued by a federal court at any level is included as a single entry in the table. Some federal government actions were subject to nationwide injunctions in multiple cases and thus are included in the table more than once.

Using the foregoing methodology, and subject to the noted caveats, CRS has identified 25 cases in which federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and April 29, 2025.

Table of Cases

The following table contains a list of nationwide injunctions issued during the first hundred days of the second Trump Administration, between January 20, 2025, and April 29, 2025. The Caption column in the table contains a citation to the first nationwide injunction that CRS identified in each case. Cases are listed in chronological order based on the date of issuance of the first decision cited. The Main Topic column identifies the subject matter at issue in each case. CRS categorized cases by subject matter manually. While some cases raised multiple legal and policy issues and could potentially be classified in multiple subject areas, CRS selected one primary issue area per case for ease of analysis.

Any additional nationwide injunctions that issued in each case are included in the Notes column. The Notes column also briefly identifies the government action subject to each nationwide injunction. In some cases, only a part of an executive order, guidance document, or other federal initiative was enjoined, but in each case enforcement of the enjoined portion of the challenged action was barred as to all relevant persons or entities.

The government has filed appeals in many of the listed cases. As of the date of this report, no appellate court has issued a final ruling on the validity of any of the listed nationwide injunctions.²² The table notes additional nationwide injunctions in each case and identifies selected Supreme Court proceedings in footnotes. The table does not include other subsequent history, such as clarifying orders or stays issued by the district court or a reviewing appellate court.

Considerations for Congress

Nationwide injunctions have received significant attention from commentators, courts, and legislators for a number of years. A separate CRS Report discusses the broader legal and policy debate around nationwide injunctions.³⁷ The topic has attracted additional attention under the second Trump Administration. One factor contributing to this interest may be the number of nationwide injunctions handed down in high-profile cases. As of April 29, 2025, CRS identified 25 cases in which district courts had issued nationwide injunctions.³⁸ By comparison, CRS identified six nationwide injunctions issued during the first hundred days of the first Trump Administration and four issued during the first hundred days of the Biden Administration.³⁹

There are several possible reasons for the relatively high number of nationwide injunctions under the second Trump Administration to date. One factor may be the large number of executive orders issued by the Administration. As of April 29, 2025, the second Trump Administration had issued 142 executive orders, surpassing the previous record of 99 set during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term.⁴⁰ Beyond the sheer number of executive actions that may be challenged in court and potentially enjoined, some commentators contend that multiple actions of the second Trump Administration have been enjoined because they exceed the President's authority or violate the Constitution or federal statutes.⁴¹

A second possible factor in the increase in nationwide injunctions is the behavior of the courts. Some observers posit that courts have become more willing to issue nationwide injunctions, with some asserting that federal judges are infringing on the authority of the executive branch.⁴² Some contend that "the federal judiciary is ideologically lopsided in its use of non-party relief" enjoining Trump Administration policies.⁴³

In addition to actions of the executive and judicial branches, the issuance of nationwide injunctions may also be driven by challengers' litigation strategy. Increased awareness of nationwide injunctions may lead more plaintiffs to request universal relief. Moreover, some plaintiffs may have a choice of courts in which to file a lawsuit, and may seek out a forum that they believe is more likely to yield a favorable result, a practice sometimes called "forum shopping."⁴⁴ While some degree of forum shopping is an accepted part of litigation, considerations related to nationwide injunctions and forum shopping have generated discussion in recent years. Some have raised concerns around forum shopping in nationwide injunction cases, where the stakes for forum selection are high because a single district court judge may halt a federal action in its entirety.⁴⁵ In some cases, litigants may seek to file a case so that it will proceed not just in a particular court but before a particular judge—a type of forum shopping sometimes called "judge shopping."⁴⁶ The perception that litigants can proceed before a hand-picked judge and obtain a nationwide injunction may undermine the perception of the judiciary as the non-political branch of government.⁴⁷

Nationwide injunctions have also attracted widespread public attention during the second Trump Administration to date because a number of nationwide injunctions have been issued in high-profile cases, and several of those cases have reached the Supreme Court. As of May 6, 2025, seven of the nationwide injunctions CRS identified from the second Trump Administration had been appealed to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis.⁴⁸ A CRS Legal Sidebar provides an overview of three such cases involving challenges to an executive order related to birthright citizenship.⁴⁹ The Court held oral argument in the consolidated cases on May 15, 2025, which is unusual for emergency matters before the Court.⁵⁰ It is possible that a ruling from the Supreme Court in those cases will provide guidance on whether and when it is appropriate for federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions.⁵¹

Congress also has authority to enact legislation related to nationwide injunctions as part of its power to regulate federal courts, and Members of Congress have been considering whether and how to legislate on this issue. In April 2025, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on nationwide injunctions.⁵²

Some Members of the 119th Congress have also introduced legislation that would regulate nationwide injunctions. The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, which passed the House in April 2025, would provide that federal district courts could generally only issue injunctive relief "to limit the actions of a party to the case . . . with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court and non-parties represented by such a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."⁵³ As an exception to that limitation, the bill would allow a three-judge district court to issue broader injunctive relief "[i]f a case is brought by two or more States located in different circuits challenging an action by the executive branch." The three-judge panel would be randomly assigned and would be required to "consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional separation of powers" before issuing injunctive relief. The bill would further provide that orders of a three-judge panel granting or denying injunctive relief could be appealed either to a U.S. Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, "at the preference of the party."

Another proposal, the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, would provide that no federal court

shall issue any order, including an injunction, vacatur, stay, temporary restraining order, declaratory relief, or equitable relief, that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party or compel action in favor of a non-party with respect to any statute, regulation, order, executive action, or similar authority, unless the court determines the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.⁵⁴

The Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2025 contains a similar provision.⁵⁵ In addition to the foregoing limitation, the Judicial Relief Clarification Act would provide for immediate appeals of temporary restraining orders. It would also amend the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to provide that remedies are "limited to a person . . . before the court"⁵⁶ and to remove judicial authority to "set aside" unlawful agency actions.⁵⁷

The Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act of 2025 would provide that district courts could not issue injunctive relief unless the order is only applicable to either "a party to the case before the district court" or "the judicial district of the district court."⁵⁸ The Court Shopping Deterrence Act would provide that, if a district court of the United States grants a nationwide injunction, as defined in the act, "the appeal from the order granting such injunction shall lie to the Supreme Court."⁵⁹

An additional proposal, the Restraining Judicial Insurrectionist Act of 2025, would not specifically regulate nationwide injunctions, but would apply generally to require the use of a three-judge district court in suits "commenced against any department or office of the executive branch that seeks declaratory relief, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction, vacatur, a stay, or other equitable relief against an action of the executive branch or executive order of the President."⁶⁰

The foregoing proposals take different approaches to defining the nationwide injunctions or other judicial actions subject to regulation. When evaluating proposed legislation related to nationwide injunctions, Members of Congress may consider whether the proposal accurately identifies the class of court orders Congress seeks to regulate.⁶¹ A proposal that is overinclusive may limit injunctions that Members of Congress do not seek to regulate, while an underinclusive proposal may not effectively address policy concerns related to nationwide injunctions. A proposal that is not precisely drafted may create confusion for courts and parties and spark litigation over the scope of the regulation. Congress may also weigh other legal and policy considerations related to regulation of nationwide injunctions, including whether or not to ban or limit nationwide injunctions, provide substantive standards for courts to apply in ruling on requests for universal relief, or impose new procedural rules in nationwide injunction cases.⁶² Members of Congress could also consider how proposals would interact with existing procedures for APA and class action litigation.⁶³

Footnotes