First 175 years For the first 175 years of the republic, courts typically did not enjoin defendants with respect to nonparties, especially if that defendant was the federal government. Some scholars have estimated that American federal courts issued a dozen nationwide injunctions during this time, while others have estimated that American federal courts issued zero nationwide injunctions during this time. In the nineteenth century, courts occasionally enjoined a municipality or county from enforcing a challenged tax or ordinance against nonparties. This was considered an extension of the "bill of peace" because it resolved a common claim by a small and cohesive group. One explanation for the lack of nationwide injunctions is that the federal government itself waived its sovereign immunity from suit in 1976, while another is that venue and personal jurisdiction rules for a long time restricted litigants from suing cabinet officers outside of Washington, D.C., when seeking injunctions. Some cases from this period raised questions about the lawfulness of nationwide injunctions or closely related remedies. •
Scott v. Donald (1897) — James Donald sued the state of South Carolina for confiscating his alcohol under a statute he argued violated the federal Constitution. In addition to damages, Donald asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing the statute against anyone. Despite agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional, Professor
Mila Sohoni interpreted the
Lewis Publishing order as an "injunction barring the enforcement of the new federal law against anyone until the merits had been decided." •
Frothingham v. Mellon (1923) — Harriet Frothingham sued the federal government for spending money under the Maternity Act, which she argued exceeded the powers of the federal government. She asked the Supreme Court to enjoin the government from carrying out the provisions of this act with regard to her and nonparties alike.
New Deal challenges After the federal courts held numerous acts of
New Deal legislation unconstitutional, they did not issue nationwide injunctions. Sometimes over a thousand individual injunctions were granted with regard to a single provision, as each plaintiff brought suit to ensure that the statute could not apply to them. According to the
Department of Justice, nationwide injunctions remained "exceedingly rare" for a few decades after 1963. However, in 1968, the Supreme Court in
Flast v. Cohen noted in dicta and without condemnation that "injunctive relief sought by appellants . . . extends to any program that would have the unconstitutional features alleged in the complaint," rather than merely to those programs injuring the plaintiff. And in 1973, a district judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction against the
Interstate Commerce Commission that would "affect the agency in the entire scope of its authority and jurisdiction." Courts issued an average of 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the
Reagan,
Clinton, and
George W. Bush administrations. In 1998, the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction against the Army Corps of Engineers, preventing it from enforcing against anyone a rule it had promulgated under the Clean Water Act. It held that after finding an agency rule or regulation unconstitutional under the
Administrative Procedure Act, a federal court should ordinarily "vacate" the rule or regulation rather than merely hold it unlawful with respect to the plaintiffs. and a 2004 holding of Judge
Reggie Walton enjoining the federal government from enforcing a policy it established under the
Endangered Species Act. Judge Walton reasoned that a nationwide injunction was appropriate "because the declaratory judgment alone is inadequate when a policy is found to be facially invalid."
Obama administration According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 19 or 20 nationwide injunctions against the
Obama administration, including many on high-profile legal and political issues. Judge
Reed O'Connor of the
Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the Obama administration from issuing its guidance that
Title IX required institutions to allocate bathroom accessibility based on
gender identity rather than
biological sex. When the Department of Justice requested that Judge O'Connor narrow relief to the plaintiff states, he declined to do so. Judge
Sam R. Cummings of the
Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the Obama Administration from issuing a rule that would require employers to disclose certain activities with third parties related to dissuading labor unions. And Judge
Virginia A. Phillips of the
Central District of California held in 2010 that the federal government's
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the
Secretary of Defense from enforcing it.
First Trump administration According to the Department of Justice, federal courts issued 20 nationwide injunctions against the first
Trump Administration in its first year alone, The following month, Judge
Derrick K. Watson of the
District of Hawaii issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from implementing an
executive order amending its entry restrictions. In April 2017, Judge
William Orrick of the
Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from restricting funding to "
sanctuary cities." Judge Orrick reasoned that "where a law is unconstitutional on its face, and not simply in its application to certain plaintiffs, a nationwide injunction is appropriate." In December 2017, Judge
Marsha J. Pechman issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing its
transgender military ban. In early 2019, Judge
Richard Seeborg of the
Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction preventing the
Department of Commerce from asking
census takers if they are
United States citizens. In December 2019, Judge
David Briones of the
Western District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the administration from using certain funds to erect a
border wall. Also in 2019, Judge
Jon S. Tigar of the
Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the
Department of Justice and
Department of Homeland Security from implementing a rule regulating asylum eligibility. And multiple judges issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the
Department of Homeland Security from rescinding the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and the
Ninth Circuit affirmed one such injunction.
Biden administration Fourteen national injunctions occurred in the first three years of Biden's term.
Second Trump administration As of April 2025, federal judges have issued three federal injunctions against the Trump administration's efforts to rollback protections of the
14th amendment to the United States constitution. Courts have issued at least 14 other nationwide injunctions against the second Trump administration. On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in
Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions, on the basis that "Congress has granted federal courts no such power" and that nationwide injunctions were not practiced when the
Judiciary Act of 1789 created federal courts' jurisdiction over suits in equity. == Controversy surrounding lawfulness ==