Fact Check: "Nationwide injunctions have been commonplace since Obama's presidency, now overturned."
What We Know
Nationwide injunctions, which are court orders that block government policies from being enforced not just against specific parties but against everyone in the country, have indeed become more frequent in recent years. According to a report from the Senate Republican Policy Committee, the Supreme Court recently reversed several nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration's policies, indicating that these injunctions have been a significant part of recent legal battles.
Historically, the Obama administration faced 20 nationwide injunctions over eight years, while the Trump administration encountered nearly 40 in a shorter time frame, suggesting a marked increase in their issuance (source-2). Legal experts note that the use of nationwide injunctions has surged particularly over the last decade, with many attributing this trend to partisan judicial actions (source-3).
Analysis
The claim that nationwide injunctions have been commonplace since Obama's presidency is partially substantiated by the data indicating a rise in their use during both the Obama and Trump administrations. However, the assertion that they have been "commonplace" may be misleading. Legal historians argue that while the frequency of these injunctions has increased, they have only become a notable phenomenon in recent years, particularly since 2015 (source-3).
The increase in nationwide injunctions has raised concerns about judicial overreach and the politicization of the judiciary. Critics argue that allowing a single district court judge to effectively dictate federal policy can lead to dysfunction, as agencies may be forced to change policies abruptly based on these rulings (source-2). Furthermore, the debate surrounding the legality and appropriateness of nationwide injunctions has garnered bipartisan attention, with calls for reform from various legal commentators and officials (source-3).
While the Obama administration did face nationwide injunctions, the claim that they have been commonplace since then overlooks the fact that their prevalence has significantly escalated during the Trump administration. This context is crucial in evaluating the claim's accuracy.
Conclusion
The claim that "nationwide injunctions have been commonplace since Obama's presidency, now overturned" is Partially True. While it is accurate that the Obama administration faced nationwide injunctions and that their use has increased, the term "commonplace" may overstate the situation prior to the Trump administration. The significant rise in such injunctions during Trump's presidency indicates a shift in judicial practices, rather than a consistent trend dating back to Obama's time.
