Although the Republicans hold full control of Congress, President Trump has been facing a major roadblock when it comes to implementing his agenda—the court. Lower courts in the US have already blocked more of Trump's executive orders in his first two months in office than they had for other recent presidents throughout their entire terms.
So far this year, lower courts have slapped at least 15 nationwide injunctions against Trump. That sharply exceeds the six issued against former President George W. Bush, the 12 against former President Barack Obama, and the 14 against former President Joe Biden throughout their entire presidencies, according to a tally by Harvard Law Review.
Trump's Biggest Roadblock
If this trend continues, it is set to surpass the 64 nationwide injunctions Trump faced during his first term. During his first term, Trump issued 220 executive orders, a number comparable to the other three presidents, according to the American Presidency Project.
Since the start of his second term, he has signed over 90, according to the Federal Register.
In the past, lower court rulings were more limited to the specific cases before them. However, in recent years, courts have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions.
These injunctions have obstructed Trump's attempts to end birthright citizenship and numerous other policies he has pursued.
Trump's administration has cited the injunction against his birthright citizenship policy in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to curb the lower courts' growing use of such rulings.
The Supreme Court has given critics of Trump's petition until April 4 to justify the injunction, suggesting that the justices are in no hurry to resolve the matter.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have strongly criticized lower courts for overusing nationwide injunctions and exceeding their authority.
Earlier this month, Justice Alito wrote a scathing dissent, supported by Justices Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, criticizing a decision that upheld a lower court ruling requiring the Trump administration to release $2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development funds.
"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" Alito groused in his dissent. "The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No.' "
Tough Challenge for Trump Administration
It remains unclear whether Alito and Gorsuch can convince the rest of the Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions. For now, the Trump administration's main option is to appeal to higher courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court—a process that requires both time and resources.
Some of Trump's allies have suggested ignoring court orders altogether.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has openly accused certain judges of issuing illegal rulings, and Trump has proposed impeaching judges who obstruct his agenda. This prompted a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," the chief justice wrote in a statement last week without mentioning Trump by name.
"The normal appellate review process exists for that reason."
Trump dismissed Roberts' criticism and has publicly said that he does not plan to defy the courts.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg is investigating whether Trump violated his 14-day injunction, which blocked flights to El Salvador to detain alleged Venezuelan gang members there. Despite Boasberg's order, several flights still went off.
