Courts in the Crossfire: How Injunctions and Venue Games Are Damaging the Judiciary

On October 27, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Executive Order 14248, which required proof of citizenship for voter registration on federal forms. The executive order goal was straightforward: ensure that only citizens vote, as mandated by federal law. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the President “lacks authority” to alter election procedures under the Elections Clause.

That ruling conflates two very different constitutional areas. The Elections Clause that she relies on governs how elections are conducted—such as polling hours and ballots—not who is eligible to vote. Citizenship is a legal qualification, and the President’s duty under the Take Care Clause is to enforce those laws faithfully. Cases like Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) confirm that federal authorities can require proof of eligibility. Under the Youngstown framework, a 1952 Supreme Court test that defines the limits of presidential power, this order clearly falls within the category in which the President acts with congressional approval. The National Voter Registration Act allows the Election Assistance Commission to require information “necessary” to determine eligibility. This isn’t executive overreach; it’s the proper execution of the law.

A New Kind of Judicial Overreach

That same week, two Obama-appointed judges, Indira Talwani in Massachusetts and John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, ordered the administration to use SNAP’s $5–6 billion contingency fund to cover November benefits for 42 million recipients. The White House agreed in principle but said it lacked the legal authority to access those funds without congressional approval. The judges disagreed and enforced their decision anyway.

That creates a constitutional dilemma: obey the court and risk spending money Congress has not authorized, or refuse and risk being held in contempt. Unless appeals courts clarify the legal basis, the issue will likely go to the Supreme Court. And if no justification is given, a third party could later sue over unlawful spending. It’s a bureaucratic Catch-22—and a clear example of judges crossing from legal review into policymaking.

The Injunction Surge

These are not isolated cases. In less than 10 months of his second term, President Trump has encountered 32 nationwide injunctions, continuing a pattern from his first term, when 64 executive actions were blocked—more than all presidents from Eisenhower to Obama combined. President Biden, by comparison, faced only 14 such injunctions in four years.

The Supreme Court tried to slow this trend in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025), ruling 6–3 that nationwide injunctions generally exceed judicial authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Relief, the Court said, must address specific harms to plaintiffs, not block policies for the entire nation. The decision slowed the pace, injunctions dropped from 5.5 per month to 3.8, but creative workarounds like class actions and state-specific blocks now serve the same purpose under different labels.

Forum Shopping and Ideological Judging

Advocates know where to find friendly judges. About 30 percent of all cases are filed in the D.C. District Court, 25 percent in the Northern District of California, and 20 percent in Massachusetts—districts led by Democratic appointees. Roughly 70 percent of injunctions against Trump come from such courts. Conservative challenges to Biden followed a similar pattern, often ending up before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, the only judge in that division.

The imbalance becomes more evident on appeal. Studies from the Congressional Research Service, Harvard Law Review, and Yale Law’s 2025 injunction database show that injunctions by Democratic-appointed judges against Trump were upheld about 85 percent of the time, while those by Republican-appointed judges against Biden survived about half the time once the Supreme Court weighed in.

Both sides play the game, but venues that favor the Left tend to last longer. The outcome is a system where results depend more on geography and ideology than on the law—undermining the belief that justice is impartial.

The Money Behind the Machine

The money behind this “lawfare” is enormous. Progressive legal groups spent about half a billion dollars opposing Trump’s first-term policies; the ACLU alone invested over $200 million. Allies like Earthjustice, Lambda Legal, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Democracy Forward contributed hundreds of millions more.

Conservative challenges to Biden cost about one-tenth as much, mostly funded by state attorneys general rather than private donors. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed over 100 suits against Biden, operated on a litigation budget of just $6 million—a fraction of the ACLU’s.

Even more troubling, several of these organizations receive federal grants from the very agencies they sue. Earthjustice takes in $15–20 million annually from the EPA; the Vera Institute of Justice receives $25–30 million from the Department of Justice; and Democracy Forward collects $10–15 million from HHS and the Department of Education. They claim private donations fund their lawsuits, but money is fungible. Federal grants free up private dollars for litigation, allowing taxpayer money to finance lawsuits against lawful government actions indirectly.

Restoring Balance

Whenever a single district judge halts a nationwide policy, the separation of powers weakens. Judicial review is vital to constitutional government, but judicial vetoes by ideologically predictable judges are not.

The Supreme Court’s CASA decision was a step forward, but Congress now needs to clarify the boundaries of injunctive relief and mandate faster appellate review. The Judicial Conference should strengthen venue rules to prevent forum shopping. Additionally, the executive branch should make sure taxpayers aren’t funding lawsuits against their own government through federal grants.

The controversy over proof of citizenship goes beyond voter registration. It’s about whether the will of the people still shapes national policy—or if unelected judges in sympathetic courts can overturn it from the bench.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.