Last month alone, district court judges issued 15 temporary restraining orders halting actions by the Trump administration. Judges should be a bulwark of our liberties, and we agree that Trump sometimes goes too far with executive actions. But these judicial edicts appear to pure politics, not based on constitutional law.

Here’s the evidence: More district court injunctions have been issued against Trump so far this year than were issued during the first three years of the Biden Administration. District courts have blocked an extraordinary range of executive actions ranging from the repeal of birthright citizenship to the deportation of members of Tren de Aragua, the infamous Venezuelan prison gang.

Trump may get a sympathetic hearing from the Supremes.

In 2018, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their Legality.

In the years since then the Court has moved in Thomas’s direction on many issues.  Will this be his next victory? If the Supreme Court doesn’t curb nationwide injunctions, Congress should step in.