Press Releases
Trump and MAGA Republicans Blast Nationwide Injunctions After Spending Years Using Judiciary to Seek Them

WASHINGTON, DC – Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear President Donald Trump’s application to stay multiple nationwide preliminary injunctions against his unconstitutional executive order (EO) ending birthright citizenship. And while Trump and top advisors, like Stephen Miller, have wrongly tried to claim trial court judges don’t have the authority to block his EOs, a new Accountable.US report reveals MAGA Republicans’ stunning change of tune in recent months, after using nationwide injunctions to try to hamstring Democratic administrations’ executive actions for years.
In fact, Miller’s America First Legal repeatedly requested and was granted nationwide injunctions, which thwarted parts of President Biden’s agenda from the very start of his administration:
- In August 2024, America First Legal requested a nationwide injunction to stop the Biden administration’s “parole in place” program, which would allow up to 550,000 people to receive temporary protections and work permits in the U.S.
- In February 2023, America First Legal requested a nationwide injunction to stop the Biden administration’s CHNV program, which allowed immigrants from certain countries to legally work and live in the U.S. on parole.
- In 2022, America First Legal claimed an “AFL victory” after a judge issued a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit challenging a vaccine mandate for federal employees (which was similar to one of AFL’s own lawsuits).
- In April 2021, America First Legal requested a nationwide injunction to curtail immigration due to alleged public health concerns.
And it’s not just top Trump officials changing their tune; nearly every conservative-led state that requested nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration has now signed on to amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to limit the authority of trial court judges to impose broad injunctive relief.
Donald Trump and his allies have been using any argument they can conjure to attack any judicial decision they disagree with. The fact they used to promote the same tools they are decrying makes clear they’re more interested in exploiting the judicial system as a power grab for their out-of-touch agenda than they are abiding by the Constitution.”