Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.,com,

The days of rogue district court judges hijacking executive authority may finally be numbered. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a consolidated case, Trump v. CASA, which challenges lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. Despite the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch on immigration matters, three district judges issued sweeping nationwide injunctions halting the order. 

Now, the highest court may have the chance to rein in judicial overreach and restore balance between the branches of government.

Since President Trump began his second term, liberal judges have weaponized nationwide injunctions against his administration an astonishing 17 times in just the first few months — and that's only counting through late March 2025. This is nothing new, of course. 

Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration.

In recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, argued in a 2020 concurring opinion that injunctions are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."

He said the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions" and that the court must address them.

He also noted that nationwide injunctions mean that plaintiffs can shop around for the judge that is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause.

"Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide," Gorsuch wrote.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberal justices, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the blatant judge-shopping tactics used by plaintiffs to game the system.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue because Joe Biden's outgoing Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, also filed a brief in December 2024 asking the Supreme Court to limit these broad orders despite knowing Trump would benefit from the decision. 

"In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas," Kagan said in 2022. 

"It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."

Let’s be honest: Nationwide injunctions were never about judicial oversight.

They’ve been the left’s go-to tool for blocking President Trump’s agenda through activist judges. 

With just one ruling, any of the hundreds of district court judges in the country can nullify federal policy they don’t like.

Now, the left is panicking. 

Without these judicial shortcuts, they’ll have to argue their cases on the merits instead of in front of cherry-picked friendly judges. Even Vox admitted these injunctions were “the core of the resistance.”

But that era may be ending.

The Supreme Court looks poised to rein in this abuse of power and restore constitutional balance. 

For anyone who believes in law, not lawfare, this moment can’t come soon enough.