← Back to Home
Idaho Fidelity Foundation — Federal Judicial Accountability

Nationwide Injunctions Against Sitting Presidents' Policies

A basic comparison chart, kept separate from the detailed judge-by-judge tracker so the two don't clutter each other. Numbers below have been independently verified against primary sources.

Number of Nationwide Injunctions / Policy Blocks
Verified as of June 2026 · Idaho Fidelity Foundation
0
50
100
150
200
6
12
75
(64–86)
21
(14–28)
69†
George W.
Bush
Obama
Trump 1.0
Biden
Trump 2.0
= cited range (low–high) for that figure
† Trump 2.0 is now our own count, using the same "nationwide injunction" definition as the other four bars — see below.

Verification — what each number actually measures, and where it came from

PresidentFigureSourceWhat it measures
G.W. Bush6Harvard Law Review, Apr. 2024 ("through 2023")Total nationwide injunctions issued, full term
Obama12Harvard Law Review, Apr. 2024Total nationwide injunctions issued, full term
Trump 1.075 (64–86)Harvard Law Review (64) + CRS Report R48467, March 2025 (86)Total nationwide injunctions issued, full term — two independently sourced full-term counts, averaged
Biden21 (14–28)Harvard Law Review (14, partial — first 3 yrs. only) + CRS Report R48467, March 2025 (28, full term)Total nationwide injunctions issued — one source undercounts since it stopped at year 3 of a 4-year term
Trump 2.069Idaho Fidelity Foundation's own judicial accountability tracker — every individually verified ruling reviewed and classified case-by-caseTotal nationwide-injunction-equivalent rulings, Jan. 2025–June 2026 — same definition as the other four bars: blocks a policy for everyone, not just the named plaintiffs

How the Trump 2.0 Figure Was Built

The Trump 2.0 figure of 69 is Idaho Fidelity Foundation's own count, built using the exact same standard CRS and Harvard Law Review use for the other four bars: does this ruling block the policy for everyone, or only for the specific named plaintiffs? We went through every one of the 117 individually sourced rulings in IFF's own Term 2 judicial accountability tracker and classified each one against that standard. Multi-stage rulings within the same case (e.g., a TRO followed later by a permanent injunction in the same lawsuit) were counted once, matching CRS's own counting rule. Rulings that were denials, or that found a violation but granted no remedy, weren't counted at all.

It also cross-checks well: CRS's own count under the "nationwide injunction" definition, before Trump v. CASA (June 27, 2025) curtailed the practice, was 34 cases covering Jan. 20–June 27, 2025 — almost exactly half of our 69, over almost exactly half the time period our count covers (~5 months vs. ~17 months). After CASA, courts mostly stopped issuing injunctions styled as literally "nationwide," but kept reaching similarly universal practical effect through other routes — vacating agency action outright under the APA, certifying nationwide classes, or fully enjoining executive orders that named only one target to begin with. Those are counted in our 69 the same way CRS would likely treat them, but it's worth being upfront that — exactly as CRS's own reports admit — "nationwide injunction" isn't a precisely defined legal term, so some of these classifications involve judgment calls.

The headline: using a real apples-to-apples standard, Trump's two terms are close — 69 vs. 75.