Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of land they possess without the owner's permission, if certain conditions are met over a specific period. The increasing use of national injunctions by federal circuit court justices has sparked significant debate about judicial overreach and adverse possession, particularly when single district judges issue rulings that halt executive or legislative actions nationwide. Critics argue that these injunctions undermine the separation of powers, bypass the democratic process, and grant unelected judges disproportionate influence over federal policy. A Republican-controlled Congress, alongside Chief Justice John Roberts, must act to curb this practice, reminding circuit court justices that they lack the standing to issue such sweeping orders. National injunctions represent a departure from constitutional principles, misalign with the judiciary’s role as envisioned by Chief Justice John Marshall, and require legislative and judicial intervention to restore balance. By examining federal and state laws, historical precedent, and the judiciary’s proper scope, we demonstrate that judges are not “gods” with unlimited authority, but public servants bound by constitutional limits.
National injunctions, where a single district judge blocks a federal policy across the entire country, have become more frequent in recent decades. According to the Congressional Research Service, the first Trump administration faced 86 nationwide injunctions, while the Biden administration encountered 28, and Trump’s second term saw 17 by March 2025. These numbers reflect a growing trend where judges issue broad rulings that affect parties beyond those directly involved in a case, often halting executive actions like immigration policies or regulatory reforms. This practice raises concerns about “forum shopping,” where plaintiffs seek sympathetic judges to issue nationwide rulings, undermining the judicial process’s impartiality.
The legal basis for national injunctions is shaky. The Judiciary Act of 1789 granted federal courts the power to issue injunctions, but historically, these were limited to specific parties or localities. The Constitution’s Article III restricts federal courts to resolving “cases” or “controversies,” implying that remedies should be tailored to the plaintiffs before the court. Issuing a national injunction exceeds this scope, effectively allowing a single judge to act as a national policymaker. This practice conflicts with the Supreme Court’s emphasis on remedies focused on specific parties, as seen in cases like Gill v. Whitford (2018), where the Court stressed that judicial relief should not extend beyond the litigants.
Chief Justice John Marshall, serving from 1801 to 1835, is often cited as the architect of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this landmark case, Marshall declared, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is,” affirming the judiciary’s role in checking unconstitutional acts of Congress or the executive. However, Marshall’s vision was not one of judicial supremacy or divine authority. His rulings, such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which upheld federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause, emphasized a balanced federal system where the judiciary interprets the law within its constitutional bounds, not as an omnipotent force overriding other branches.
Marshall’s approach was pragmatic, not godlike. In Cohens v. Virginia (1821), he defended federal judicial authority over state courts but carefully avoided overstepping into legislative or executive domains. He understood that judges are not infallible deities but human arbiters tasked with applying the law impartially. The modern practice of national injunctions, where a single judge can nullify a policy nationwide, distorts Marshall’s legacy by transforming judges into de facto legislators or executives, roles he never envisioned for the judiciary.
Federal law provides mechanisms to curb judicial overreach. The All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) allows courts to issue injunctions but does not explicitly authorize nationwide relief. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706) permits courts to set aside unlawful agency actions, but remedies are typically limited to the parties involved. National injunctions stretch these statutes beyond their intended scope, as they affect non-parties and disrupt the executive’s ability to implement policy. Congress has the authority under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts, including limiting their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
State laws also highlight the tension with national injunctions. For example, state election laws, such as those in Texas (Texas Election Code § 273.081), allow state courts to enjoin violations of voting procedures but limit relief to specific jurisdictions. Federal judges issuing national injunctions on election-related matters, like voter ID laws, often override these state-specific frameworks, undermining federalism. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. § 10301) empowers federal oversight of state voting laws but requires targeted remedies, not blanket nationwide orders.
A Republican-controlled Congress has both the motivation and the means to address this issue. In April 2025, the House passed a bill (219-213) to limit district judges’ authority to issue national injunctions, restricting relief to the parties before the court except in multi-state cases heard by three-judge panels. Sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, the bill reflects Republican concerns that unelected judges are thwarting executive actions, particularly under President Trump. While the bill faces challenges in the Senate, it signals Congress’s intent to reassert control over judicial overreach. Congress could further leverage its appropriations power to prohibit federal funds from enforcing nationwide injunctions, as proposed by Rep. Jim Jordan.
Chief Justice John Roberts, as the leader of the Supreme Court, is uniquely positioned to guide the judiciary back to its proper role. Roberts has consistently emphasized judicial restraint and institutional integrity. In a 2018 statement, he rebuked then-President Trump’s attacks on judges, asserting, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges… That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” His opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate under the taxing power but rejected an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, demonstrating his commitment to limiting federal power where appropriate.
Roberts could steer the Court toward clarifying the legality of national injunctions. Justice Clarence Thomas has already criticized their use in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), arguing that they lack historical or constitutional grounding. A Supreme Court ruling restricting nationwide injunctions would align with Roberts’s preference for narrow, consensus-driven decisions that avoid sweeping judicial overreach.
The notion that judges are “gods” wielding unchecked power is antithetical to the American system of checks and balances. Marshall himself faced political pressures from President Thomas Jefferson, yet he navigated these challenges by grounding his rulings in constitutional principles, not personal fiat. Modern circuit court justices issuing national injunctions risk eroding public trust in the judiciary by appearing to prioritize ideological agendas over legal restraint. As Rep. Issa noted, “The Supreme Court must reach a majority to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes that they can make the law of the land.”
the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) can play a significant role in addressing the issue of circuit court justices issuing national injunctions. As a key congressional body overseeing the federal judiciary and justice system, the committee has the authority and tools to propose reforms, conduct oversight, and advance legislation to curb judicial overreach. Below is a concise explanation of how the committee can help, grounded in its powers and relevant legal frameworks.
1. Legislative Proposals
The House Judiciary Committee can draft and advance bills to limit the ability of federal district judges to issue national injunctions. For instance, the committee could refine and champion legislation like the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act, introduced in April 2025, which restricts district judges from issuing nationwide relief except in specific multi-state cases heard by three-judge panels. The committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet has jurisdiction over federal court operations and could hold hearings to develop such legislation, ensuring it aligns with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which grants Congress authority to regulate federal court jurisdiction.
2. Oversight and Investigations
The committee can conduct oversight of federal courts to examine the frequency and impact of national injunctions. By subpoenaing judicial records or inviting testimony from legal experts and affected parties, the committee can highlight cases where single judges have halted national policies, such as immigration or election-related executive actions. This oversight could build public and congressional support for reform, emphasizing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), which limits judicial remedies to specific parties, and Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.
3. Budgetary Leverage
Through its influence over appropriations, the committee can recommend funding restrictions to discourage the enforcement of national injunctions. For example, it could propose amendments to judiciary budgets prohibiting the use of federal funds to implement nationwide injunctions, a tactic suggested by Rep. Jim Jordan in 2025. This approach leverages Congress’s constitutional power of the purse (Article I, Section 9) to incentivize judicial restraint.
4. Engaging with the Supreme Court
While the committee cannot directly influence Chief Justice John Roberts or the Supreme Court, it can file amicus briefs in relevant cases or publicly urge the Court to clarify the legality of national injunctions. The committee could reference Justice Clarence Thomas’s critique in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which questioned the constitutional basis for nationwide injunctions, to bolster its case. By amplifying this issue, the committee could encourage Roberts to prioritize a case that sets a precedent limiting such injunctions.
5. Public Hearings and Reports
The committee can hold public hearings to educate lawmakers and the public about the dangers of judicial overreach, framing national injunctions as a threat to federalism and separation of powers. By issuing reports that cite specific instances of injunctions overriding state laws (e.g., Texas Election Code § 273.081) or federal policies, the committee can build momentum for bipartisan reform, especially among Republicans concerned about executive authority.
The committee’s efforts could face resistance in a divided Senate or from judicial advocates who argue that national injunctions protect against unlawful executive actions. Additionally, any legislation must avoid infringing on judicial independence, as emphasized by Chief Justice Roberts in 2018. The committee would need to craft narrowly tailored reforms to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The House Judiciary Committee is well-positioned to address the misuse of national injunctions by proposing legislation, conducting oversight, leveraging budgetary powers, and engaging with the judiciary. By grounding its actions in federal laws like the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651) and constitutional principles, the committee can help restore the judiciary’s proper role, ensuring judges act within their constitutional limits rather than as unchecked policymakers.
A Republican-controlled Congress and Chief Justice John Roberts must act decisively to rein in circuit court justices issuing national injunctions. These orders exceed the judiciary’s constitutional role, distort John Marshall’s legacy, and undermine federal and state laws designed to balance power. By passing legislation like the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act and leveraging the Supreme Court’s authority to set precedent, Congress and Roberts can restore the judiciary’s proper scope. Judges are not divine arbiters but public servants accountable to the Constitution and the people. Reasserting this principle is essential to preserving the rule of law and the integrity of American governance.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
Arizona v. United States
Judge threatens AG Uthmeier for violating court order, and Trump's Cabinet touts accomplishments
