Judicial review is all the rage these days.

It seem that again and again, every few days the Trump administration unveils a new policy only for it to be frozen by a federal judge. From his illegal USAID shutdown to his constitutionally dubious repeal of birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive orders are getting put on ice by judges at an extraordinary rate.

In response, team Trump has decried these judges as “highly political activist judges”. In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the administration would “continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions.” Trump’s new vizier Elon Musk has stated that “There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments.”

On the right, the message is that Donald Trump’s actions have been stymied by gavel-waving leftist radicals, hellbent on stopping the Trump agenda.

But are these injunctions radical? Are these judges radical?

What’s an Injunction, Anyway?

Injunctions, simply put, are court orders require that a person do/refrain from doing something. They can take many forms:

• Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) are short term (<10 day) halts a certain behavior while the ordering court gets time to issue a more permanent order

• Temporary Injunctions do the same, but can last slightly longer

• Permanent Injunctions are lasting, but are the most difficult to obtain

Typically, an injunction is used when the government is planning to do something, and is then sued to determine the constitutionality of its action. While the courts sort things out, there is often some sort of injunction to keep things at the status quo until relevant judges have a chance to make a more informed decision.

When George Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in March of 2002, he stated that:

Indeed, the “certain provisions” Bush mentioned were quickly enjoined while relevant lawsuits made their way through the courts.

Bush’s words reflect the growing behavior of our Legislative and Executive branches: try something and let the courts figure out if you’re allowed to do it. Because of this, injunctions have been on the rise for decades. As Congress has continued to abdicate its responsibility to the Executive, Presidents have taken more and more power into their own hands. With Congress in a perpetual deadlock on all but the most important issues, the President is often pressured and enabled to take action and punt on constitutionality to the courts.

Simply put, the injunction is a pause button meant to give the courts time to act responsibly. And the rise of the injunction is the result of Congress and the Executive acting in an increasingly irresponsible manner.

This trend is bipartisan. For example, the courts have also notably enjoined Barack Obama’s DAPA and DACA immigration programs, as well as Joe Biden’s Vaccine Mandate and Oil/Gas leasing moratoriums.

So when Trump complains about unfair treatment, just know that he’s being treated the same exact way every single president in modern history has been treated.

But what about the injunctions and the judges themselves?

Seeking impartial news? Meet 1440.

Every day, 3.5 million readers turn to 1440 for their factual news. We sift through 100+ sources to bring you a complete summary of politics, global events, business, and culture, all in a brief 5-minute email. Enjoy an impartial news experience.

Join for free today!

Radical Injunctions, or Radical Orders?

Just like Obama and Biden were mainly to blame for their orders being enjoined, the blame for these new injunctions lays right at the feet of Trump and Musk. Far from being stymied by screeching leftists, these executive orders were enjoined by a bipartisan group of respected jurists. Let’s take a look:

Birthright Citizenship

What it is: A January 20th executive order to restrict citizenship eligibility, overturning the 250-year precedent of extending citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil.

Who enjoined it: Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W Bush appointee; Judge Deborah Boardman, a Joe Biden appointee; and Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee.

Why: All three judges determined the order likely violates the 14th Amendment, and that the executive branch does not have the power to effectively rewrite a constitutional amendment through an executive order.

Federal Funding Freeze

What it is: A January 27th memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget which would halt all federal financial assistance, including grants and loans.

Who enjoined it: Judge John McConnell, a Barack Obama appointee; and Judge Loren AliKhan, a Joe Biden appointee.

Why: The judges determined that the executive branch lacked unilateral authority to suspend federal funding without congressional approval. Since Congress appropriates funds, Congress would have to be the one to modify said appropriations.

DOGE Treasury Department Control

What it is: A directive to the Treasury department to allow Elon Musk and other unelected individuals with no government oversight to access sensitive Treasury Department payment systems and data

Who enjoined it: Judge Paul Engelmayer, a Barack Obama appointee; and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton Appointee

Why: The directive potentially violates federal privacy laws, a lack of authority for DOGE to access sensitive information, and the potential for DOGE to interfere with congressionally appropriated funds.

The “Fork in the Road” Directive

What it is: A directive from the Trump administration allowing federal employees to accept a “deferred resignation” program, allowing them to receive pay and benefits until September 30th of this year

Who enjoined it: Judge George O’Toole Jr., a Bill Clinton appointee

Why: Lack of legal authority for the president to act unilaterally, and the coercive nature of the ultimatum given to federal employees.

USAID Shutdown

What it is: A reduction of the USAID workforce from 14,000 to 300 employees, a pause of USAID funding, the shuttering of USAID offices, and the firing of key USAID personnel such as its inspector general

Who enjoined it: Judge Carl Nichols, a Donald Trump appointee

Why: An infringement on Congress’s power of the purse — Congress appropriates funding to USAID, and only Congress can rescind said funding

Of all judges mentioned, only Judge Kollar-Kotelly has previously caused controversy in her rulings. All others have uncontroversial histories.

So you tell me

On one side of the conflict, we have a broad bipartisan bench of respectable jurists with very little controversy. On the other, we have two men who have repeatedly been credibly accused of sexual harassment, have been outed as liars, and have regularly called for the jailing and even execution of their political opponents.

On one side of the conflict, we have a government body exercising its authority to delay implementation of executive orders that would drastically change how the government operates overnight. On the other, we have two men that are trying to bombard their political opponents with a flurry of actions within the span of days.

On one side of the conflict, we have appointees that have been repeatedly vetted and voted up or down based on their qualifications and reliability. On the other, we have two men known for their mood swings, their unpredictability, and their blatant narcissism.

So you tell me:

Who’s the radical here again?