The Trump administration’s latest legal showdown with James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, over the deportation of Venezuelan gang members threatens to dump yet another judicial injunction on the plate of the Supreme Court. It adds yet more pressure on the justices to rule on the scope of lower court authority and interaction with the Executive Branch.

Nationwide injunctions have become increasingly common in recent years. An April 2024 Harvard Law Review study found that 96 were issued from the presidency of George W. Bush to the date of publication. Overall, 86.5% of those were issued by judges appointed by members of the opposing party. Trump’s first term saw 64 injunctions while Biden only faced 14. Less than 65 days into this term, judges have imposed at least 15 such injunctions on the Trump administration in its first two months alone.

The administration has so far faced dozens of lawsuits, mostly over Trump’s executive orders and the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Most of the injunctions so far have come from judges on either the Maryland or District of Columbia courts, although the injunctions purport to be in effect nationwide. The breadth of such injunctions is sure to be raised to the Supreme Court at some point in the near future. 

Trump is currently fighting to freeze federal funding, deport foreign gang members, fire thousands of federal workers, reinterpret birthright citizenship and to achieve a host of other objectives.

The case before Boasberg

Boasberg’s case involves Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and has led to heated exchanges in the courtroom over the administration’s responsiveness to the judge’s orders. The administration on Tuesday invoked state secrets privilege when declining to provide further information on the deportation of the gang members requested by Boasberg.

“This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate, and reinforced by longstanding statute, to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States,” the government wrote to the court. “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.”

The appeals process is ongoing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on Monday. That body has yet to issue a decision, but an unfavorable one is sure to result in an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.

Logistical hurdles and universal injunctions

When urging the Supreme Court to intervene, the Trump administration has highlighted the potential burdens on the top bench should nationwide injunctions become normalized and the court faces an influx of emergency appeals. The Supreme Court traditionally hears roughly 100-150 cases per year of the more than 7,000 cases seeking their intervention.

The Supreme Court hears cases on a system of "certiorari," under which a case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Any party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.

"District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote while asking the court to address injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket.”

Alioto: "I am stunned"

During a case earlier this month addressing a lower court order on the distribution of USAID funds, Associate Justice Samuel Alito issued a scathing dissent criticizing the court for declining to address the matter of the judge’s authority and jurisdiction.

"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?” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

Alioto's dissent is not the first time a justice has expressed concerns over the rising trend in universal injunctions at the district court level. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, wrote in 2018 that "[i]f their popularity continues, this court must address their legality," according to CBS News.

Those two, however, represent the conservative wing of the bench and Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberals in the matter of the USAID funds.

An opportunity may soon be forthcoming for them to address the matter, as the Department of Justice has filed emergency appeals in multiple cases asking them to narrow the scope of lower court injunctions.

On paper, the temporary injunctions are supposed to remain exactly that. Faced with a judicial stay, the administration can go to the relevant appeals court and ask them to overrule or narrow the lower court’s order while the case proceeds.

The administration won exactly such a victory on Tuesday, when the 9th Circuit partially lifted a lower court block on an executive order suspending refugee admissions under the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP). Trump ordered the suspension of the program, the freezing of its funds, and a pause on admission decisions early in his term. A group of refugees and advocacy groups sued over the change and initially secured a stay, though the 9th Circuit held that Trump has "ample power to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA."