Opinion - ‘Here we are again' — federal district courts piling on injunctions to stop Trump
'Here we are again.' Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to 'sanctuary jurisdictions.'
In President Trump's first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco.
Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California.
Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors' orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term.
Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden's term.
The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts' issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality.
Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations.
Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick's order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities.
Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities.
Under one of the orders, titled 'Protecting the American People against Invasion,' Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to 'evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.'
Orrick noted that the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law.
The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to 'commandeer' states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies.
The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that 'interfere' or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by.
Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Terminiello v. City of Chicago that the Constitution cannot be construed as a 'suicide pact.' I have never been fond of that quote, which has often been used to justify the curtailment of individual rights. But these cases could bring a new meaning to the quote in immigration cases. If one accepts the Trump administration's data, then continued funding of these jurisdictions might be more akin to being forced to pay for your own hit man and then calling it suicide.
There is a reason courts generally wait for these conflicts to become 'ripe.' The administration could easily engage in impermissible 'commandeering,' but it could also 'evaluate and undertake' more focused and defensible withholdings of federal funds. Judge Orrick decided not to wait to find out.
These are difficult questions, but the Supreme Court can reduce these cases by actually ruling with clarity. The court has often left these issues mired in ambiguity, kicking cases like cans down the road for any final resolution.
Consider the order out of the District of Columbia blocking an effort to change federal voting forms to require proof of citizenship. Trump campaigned on the issue, and, according to a Gallup poll, 84 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of requiring voters to show such identification.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the federal government from changing the standardized national voter registration form and to have federal voter registration agencies 'assess' the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form.
Kollar-Kotelly raises good-faith limits on presidents' ability to regulate elections, a power mainly left to the states. However, this is a policy that does not necessarily impose a new condition on states.
After all, non-citizens are barred from voting in federal elections in all states. Again, there must be some ability of the administration to act to address a national priority in the funding of election reforms and practices. The question is whether the court will recognize such a federal interest.
The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed 'here again,' but this is not a good place for anyone.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Is 4,700 federal troops a big deployment?
About 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines have been sent to Los Angeles as of Tuesday morning, after President Trump bypassed California leaders who said federal forces were not needed to respond to mostly peaceful protests. Here's how the deployment compares to past military activations on domestic soil responding to social unrest. 2021: Attack on the Capitol In 2021, officials in Washington initially requested 340 National Guard members to help respond to planned protests on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, according to the military. As the protests on Jan. 6 against the 2020 presidential election results deteriorated, with a violent mob attacking police officers and the Capitol, the mayor of Washington D.C., Muriel Bowser, requested assistance, and 1,100 D.C. National Guard members were sent. Later that night, the acting defense secretary at the time, Chris Miller, mobilized 6,200 more National Guard members from other states to ensure peace in the days leading up to former President Joseph R. Biden's inauguration. 2020: George Floyd Protests After protests sprung up around the United States in response to the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, National Guard members were deployed to several states. As of June 3, 2020, the National Guard had deployed more than 18,000 members in 28 states to respond to civil unrest related to Mr. Floyd's murder at the request of the states' governors. Another 42,000 National Guard members were activated at the same time for the coronavirus pandemic response. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Newsom Warns Trump May Use Soldiers on Immigration Raids
Gavin Newsom is warning that Donald Trump's use of troops where state and local officials don't want them is actually a test, one the Republican president may seek to replicate across other American towns and cities as part of his mass deportation effort. 'We're getting word that he's looking to operationalize that relationship and advance significantly larger-scale ICE operations in partnership and collaboration with the National Guard,' the Democratic governor said on the podcast Pod Save America. Such a move would likely be illegal for reasons similar to those Newsom has cited in litigation to stop Trump's use of the military in Los Angeles. Legal experts have said that, as with many of Trump's emergency declarations since he took office, there is no legal basis for the Republican's move to take control of the California National Guard. State and city officials have reported that protests against Trump and his immigration raids have been largely peaceful during the day with minor skirmishes at night, while limited to a few parts of a city that spreads over several hundred square miles. With no reported deaths and few injuries—some among journalists shot with plastic rounds by local police —protests have begun spreading across the country. Demonstrations have been held in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Texas and Washington. Meanwhile, Trump's federalization of 4,000 members of California National Guard and his ordering of 700 active duty Marines to Los Angeles will reportedly cost $134 million for 60 days.


Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump's invasion of California marches on
Presented by Health Justice Action Fund ALL ANGLES: California leaders are bracing as Donald Trump's administration continues its multi-pronged attack on the state. The president is considering cutting federal education funds to California, which could cost the cash-strapped state billions of dollars, our Rebecca Carballo, Juan Perez Jr. and Eric He report today. The development comes as Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass grapple with Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Southern California. The governor is awaiting a Thursday afternoon hearing on a request for a restraining order over the deployment of the National Guard and Marines. (The federal judge assigned to the case is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.) Trump claimed he called Newsom 'a day ago' and that Los Angeles 'would be burning' if not for the federal government's intervention. Newsom is fact-checking him in real time … 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom said in an X post responding to Trump's Oval Office comments. 'Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Meanwhile, Bass today told reporters that she has 'no idea' what the 700 Marines sent to Los Angeles by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are for, and that coordination between the city and the federal government has not been strong. 'People have asked me, what are the Marines going to do when they get here? That's a good question.' she said. She said the National Guard's only assignment was to guard federal buildings. Bass said she plans to call the president later today to tell him to stop the raids that she says have the potential to 'devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles.' 'Don't you want the World Cup to be a success, a success for you? Well, if that's what you want, give us help. Give us the $130 million that is being used for no reason,' Bass said, referencing what Hegseth said could be a 60-day effort from the federal government. The mayor said the Los Angeles Police Department has the situation under control and that assistance from the federal government is not needed. 'The violence that has happened has required LAPD to ask for additional assistance, but not from the federal government,' she said. Bass said there might be another rally today and that she would be attending an interfaith prayer service to call for peace. Norman reported from Los Angeles. IT'S TUESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY GETTING THE BOOT: State Sen. Caroline Menjivar — who has been vocal about her opposition to cutting Medi-Cal benefits for undocumented immigrants — will no longer serve on a legislative budget subcommittee, our Rachel Bluth reports for POLITICO Pro subscribers. Menjivar's removal from the panel by outgoing Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire comes after the Legislature released a budget proposal that includes some of the cuts to the insurance program that Newsom put forth in a plan to close a $12 billion budget hole. According to Menjivar, she was briefed about the Legislature's budget proposal over the weekend as her home district of Los Angeles was thrown into chaos over immigration raids and violent confrontations between protesters and police. With the subcommittee scheduled to vote on the cuts at a meeting Tuesday evening, she said she let McGuire know ahead of time that she planned to vote against them. Then, Monday evening, Menjivar's chief of staff got a call from McGuire's office with word that she was being removed from her post. Menjivar said she tried to get an explanation from McGuire but her calls to him went unanswered. 'I'm disappointed,' Menjivar said. 'I really wish I could have recorded my concerns.' IN OTHER NEWS TRAFFICKING DEBATE CONTINUES: The Assembly's embattled sex trafficking bill advanced from the Senate Public Safety Committee today, even as some members called for major changes as it moves through the second house. The legislation from Assembly Public Safety Chair Nick Schultz would increase penalties for people soliciting sex from 16- and 17-year-olds and would criminalize loitering with the intent to buy sex. State Sen. Scott Wiener had strong words about the second provision, which undoes part of a bill he authored three years ago that decriminalized loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. He and others who oppose that element of the bill say it could be used to target people of color and the LGBTQ+ community. Wiener voted to move the bill forward, but he said the loitering element 'needs to come out before it comes to the floor.' 'I've already spent years repealing the loitering law,' Wiener said. 'I'm not going to be introducing the bill and having to go through that again and have all the death threats and calling me a pedophile.' Assemblymember Maggy Krell — who originally authored the legislation — plunged her house into chaos by working with Republicans to restore the stronger sentences for soliciting older teens after Democrats removed the provision. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas then stripped the bill from Krell and gave it to Schultz, who committed to continuing discussions about the legislation as it heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee. POSTING THROUGH IT: As tensions between Trump and California have escalated, so has the intensity and, to some eyes, cringiness, of the governor's social media presence. Newsom's team this morning posted a Taylor Swift-themed Instagram reel showing Trump's Truth Social posts and photos of Newsom and the president to the soundtrack of 'You Need to Calm Down.' A Star Wars-style X post from the governor's press office account features another Truth Social post being read by a villainous-sounding voice with movie images in the background. (This newsletter writer must admit her colleagues had to tell her the voice is supposed to belong to Emperor Palpatine.) WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — National Guard units blocked roadways near the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse in Santa Ana on Tuesday after the city's downtown saw clashes between protesters and law enforcement. (Orange County Register) — San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie is treading lightly over Los Angeles's clash with the Trump administration, saying his priority is 'keeping San Franciscans safe.' (San Francisco Chronicle) AROUND THE STATE — The San Diego city council approved a $43.60 monthly fee for trash collection at single-family homes. (San Diego Union Tribune) — Sacramento Police Chief Kathy Lester said that she did not violate policy when she flew first-class to ten conferences in a one year period because she reimbursed the city for the difference between a coach and first-class ticket. (Sacramento Bee) — compiled by Nicole Norman