With the sound of a gavel, a single federal judge sitting in a district populated by less than 0.4 percent of the nation can now dictate policy for all 50 states.
This power, unimaginable to the Framers, is more than a matter of judicial overreach — it strikes at the very heart of the American constitutional order. The victims of this creeping overreach aren’t just elected officials or distant agencies in Washington — they’re the entrepreneurs, consumers, and job-creators who form the backbone of the American economy.
This term, the Supreme Court will hear State of Washington v. Trump, a case in which a single district judge blocked the Trump administration’s effort to limit birthright citizenship. Headlines may focus on the underlying policy dispute, but the real stakes lie with whether a single district judge can just impose a nationwide injunction, halting the federal government from enforcing a policy across the entire country.
The court’s answer to this question must be a resounding no.
Nationwide injunctions were virtually unheard of until the late 20th century. But today, they have become a favored weapon in high-stakes political fights, especially during presidential transitions.
The temptation is understandable. Why wage a years-long court battle through the normal appellate process when one sympathetic judge can stop an entire federal policy in its tracks? But this shortcut comes at a price. When district courts assume national authority, the consequences cascade outward.
Businesses are among the first to feel the impact. Regulatory compliance is not optional, nor is it cheap. Companies invest millions to adapt to new federal rules. Compliance officers rewrite policies, human resources departments retrain staff, legal counsel revises internal guidance. Then, just as the new framework is implemented, a judge in a distant jurisdiction enjoins the rule nationwide.
The result is chaos: wasted resources and conflicting mandates. When judicial decisions swing from one extreme to another, businesses pause, jobs hang in the balance, and consumer prices go up.
Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit has warned of this danger. In his concurrence in Arizona v. Biden, he wrote that nationwide injunctions “take the judicial power beyond its traditionally understood uses.” Our Constitution gives courts the power to resolve disputes between parties, not to issue sweeping proclamations that bind the entire executive branch. Yet that is precisely what nationwide injunctions do.
The consequences for our constitutional structure are serious. But so too are the economic costs. Business thrives in an environment of predictability. Nationwide injunctions obliterate that stability. One administration’s regulation may be upheld in one circuit and blocked in another. A judge in California may impose rules that conflict with a judge in Texas. Caught in the middle, business leaders are forced to make costly guesses about what the law requires.
This isn’t just bad for business — it undermines confidence in the judiciary. Judges are meant to interpret the law — to say what it is, not what they think it should be. They are not meant to wield the law as a political cudgel. The modern misuse of equitable remedies transforms courts into de facto legislatures, issuing national policy through preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders.
Restoring judicial restraint won’t just safeguard the separation of powers—it will also create the regulatory stability businesses need to invest, grow, and hire. Nationwide injunctions may have rare uses, but they should remain exceptions. In Washington v. Trump, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore coherence and constitutional discipline — and protect both our liberties and our livelihoods.
Brandon Smith is a partner at Holtzman Vogel, based in Nashville, and a former Chief of Staff and Assistant Solicitor General in the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office. He is also a former senior policy and legal advisor to former Govs. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Matt Bevin of Kentucky.
