The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on one of the most significant legal power plays in recent memory: whether individual federal trial judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions that derail national policy. The high court’s move could mark a turning point in the Trump administration’s effort to rein in what it sees as activist judges stifling the will of the elected government.
John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department official, broke down the issue during an appearance on Fox News, where he explained the gravity of the situation and why the Supreme Court is now stepping in.
“This is about who controls all those… and there’s about 675 federal trial judges spread out all over the country,” Yoo said. “And some of them have been bringing the federal government, bringing President Trump’s agenda to a screeching halt, even though they don’t have anybody, say, who works for the government or any of the illegal aliens or any of the spending in their own courtrooms.”
In recent years, liberal activists have filed lawsuits in strategically chosen jurisdictions where they know they’ll find a sympathetic judge. The result? Leftist district judges, with no direct connection to the underlying policy or parties involved, have been able to issue injunctions blocking Trump administration directives nationwide—from immigration enforcement to federal spending priorities.
Recommended: Tom Homan Schools Joe Scarborough on Border Security, and it Was Epic!
“What’s going on here, I think it’s important to understand, is that the Supreme Court is already signaling that they’re very sympathetic to the Trump administration,” Yoo said. “The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for May 15th.”
That date raised eyebrows among legal observers, as the Court typically stops hearing arguments by April and shifts to issuing decisions in pending cases. The fact that the justices have called for arguments in May suggests the urgency and significance of the issue.
“It never hears cases in May,” Yoo explained. “Usually, they’d be done their business and they’d be sending out opinions by now. They’ve called basically a special session in order to hear President Trump’s claims that there should not be unlimited nationwide injunctions, but that they should be under the control of the Supreme Court.”
The specific case revolves around Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, but Yoo emphasized that the justices may not even reach that policy question. The real issue is the unchecked legal activism that’s allowed district court judges to assume authority over foreign policy, immigration, and federal hiring and spending.
“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”
John Yoo: SCOTUS Signals Support for Trump
“The Supreme Court is already signaling that they are very sympathetic to the Trump administration… They’ve called, basically, a special session in order to hear president Trump’s claims that there should not be unlimited nationwide… pic.twitter.com/TBKEkx5nba
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) April 19, 2025
If the court sides with the Trump administration, it could dramatically reshape how federal power is contested in the courtroom and restore constitutional limits on unelected judges meddling in national affairs.
Join the fight for constitutional integrity! As the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the crucial issue of judicial authority, your support is vital. By becoming a member of PJ Media VIP, you help uphold our mission to ensure that elected officials—not unelected judges—control national policy. Together, we can restore balance to our legal system and protect the democratic process. Join us today!
