When One Judge Blocks the Nation: Rethinking Judicial Power in America

 

Imagine a single federal judge in one state issuing a ruling that halts immigration reform, stops pandemic response measures, or freezes student loan relief for the entire country. Sound extreme? It's already happening.

This growing judicial tool is called a nationwide injunction—a court order that blocks a federal law or executive action across all 50 states. In recent years, lower court judges have used this power to halt presidential actions under Obama, Trump, and Biden. These rulings didn’t come from the Supreme Court or even appellate courts, but from district-level judges, often appointed to serve a single region.

That’s not how the judicial branch was designed to work.

Lower Courts Have a Job—But It’s Not to Govern the Country

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have the power to interpret laws and resolve disputes. Lower courts (district and circuit courts) are essential to this process. They hear cases, apply precedent, and enforce rights within their jurisdiction.

But they were never meant to set nationwide policy. The judiciary was structured as a hierarchy. At the base are district courts, then appeals courts, and at the top, the Supreme Court. That design exists for a reason: to ensure that only the highest level of legal authority has the power to resolve constitutional conflicts that affect the entire nation.

One Judge Shouldn’t Speak for 330 Million Americans

A district judge’s job is to apply the law in specific cases—not to issue sweeping decisions that affect people and policies far beyond their courtroom. Yet that’s exactly what happens with nationwide injunctions. One judge can block a president’s executive order or a law passed by Congress before it has been reviewed by any higher court.

That’s a serious disruption to the balance of powers.

Even Justice Neil Gorsuch has criticized this practice, warning that it turns lower courts into “mini-legislatures” with power to control national policy. Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree: nationwide injunctions let individual judges act like the Supreme Court without the accountability, deliberation, or consensus that such decisions require.

Checks and Balances Require Boundaries

The judiciary is a vital check on executive and legislative overreach—but checks and balances are not the same as unlimited veto power. The Constitution gives Congress the power to write laws, the president the power to enforce them, and the judiciary the power to interpret them. Those powers are meant to be equal, not interchangeable.

Letting lower courts block national policy undermines this structure. It creates legal whiplash with each administration, where new rules are passed and then immediately frozen by judges far from Washington, D.C. These decisions often trigger nationwide consequences without a full legal review and before the Supreme Court can weigh in.

Why the Supreme Court Should Decide

The Supreme Court exists to speak with final authority on constitutional issues and national law. It has nine justices, rigorous deliberation, and a responsibility to hear arguments from all sides. When it acts, it speaks for the entire judicial branch.

That’s why only the Supreme Court should be able to issue injunctions that halt national laws or executive actions. It is the only court structured to evaluate such far-reaching questions with the necessary scope, legitimacy, and constitutional responsibility.

Final Thought

This isn’t about left or right—it’s about order. The rule of law demands a system where courts have defined roles and do not overstep. Lower courts are essential, but their authority should be proportional to their place in the judicial system. If we want checks and balances to work, we must protect the boundaries that make them meaningful.

It’s time to rethink nationwide injunctions—and restore national authority to the court built to handle it.