admin
The Harvard Law Review data cited by Karoline Leavitt refers to nationwide injunctions issued against Trump administration policies. During Trump’s presidency, , with and only 5 by Republican-appointees . This pattern reflects heightened judicial activism during contentious political eras, as Democratic-appointed judges blocked policies on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmental regulations.
However, this trend isn’t unique to Trump. During Biden’s administration, were issued against his policies, , targeting COVID-19 vaccine mandates and climate initiatives. The data reveals a tit-for-tat pattern where judges appointed by presidents of the opposing party disproportionately issue injunctions, particularly on hot-button issues like immigration (Trump) and pandemic policies (Biden).
### Key Context:
1. :
– of nationwide injunctions under Trump and Biden were issued by judges appointed by the opposing party .
– Judges in Democratic strongholds like California and Maryland frequently halted Trump policies, while Texas judges dominated injunctions against Biden .
2. :
– The spike in injunctions under Trump () reflects both expanded executive actions and intensified ideological battles .
– The Harvard analysis notes judges increasingly use injunctions as “political weapons,” with rulings often aligning with their appointing party’s priorities .
3. :
Critics argue such trends undermine public trust in judicial neutrality, exacerbated by ethics scandals involving Supreme Court Justices accepting undisclosed gifts .
While the statistics validate claims of partisan judicial resistance, the Harvard data contextualizes this as a systemic issue rather than a unilateral effort against Trump.
