Written by Daniel Foster.
House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana dropped a striking claim on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Night in America,” pointing out that 62% of federal injunctions over the past 100 years targeted the Trump administration—a figure he tied heavily to Democratic-appointed judges. His remarks spotlight a tension between judicial rulings and executive action that’s sparked debate over balance, bias, and the courts’ role in America’s governing framework.
Johnson’s Numbers Paint a Stark Picture
During the segment, host Trey Gowdy teed up Johnson—once a go-to constitutional guru among peers—on the limits of executive power amid a flurry of lawsuits against Trump’s policies. Johnson didn’t dodge. “You’ve got a lot of activist judges, probably more than ever,” he said, leaning on stats to drive it home. “Sixty-two percent of the federal injunctions handed down in the last century were against President Trump, and 92% of those came from Democrat-appointed judges.” It’s a jarring split—most injunctions in a century, nearly all from one party’s picks.
The math’s worth a pause. If Johnson’s right, Trump’s four years—2017 to 2021—saw a flood of judicial blocks dwarfing the prior 96, from Taft to Obama. Federal injunctions, court orders halting executive moves, aren’t rare—Obama faced 20-odd nationwide ones, Biden a handful less—but Trump’s tally stands apart. Picture it: dozens of rulings, from travel bans to border walls, stalled by judges, 92% of whom got their robes from Democratic presidents. That’s not a blip; it’s a pattern Johnson calls “amiss.”
He framed it as a constitutional tug-of-war—normal to a point. “We have three co-equal branches, and they’re supposed to do this tug-of-war when you have difficult questions,” he told Gowdy. But the scale’s off, he argued—activism’s tipping it. A litigator for two decades, Johnson’s seen it up close. “I’d run into a Clinton-appointed judge or an Obama-appointed judge,” he recalled, “and one looked down at me and said, ‘Counselor, I know that’s what the Constitution says, but we’re doing something different.’” It’s a memory that stuck—judges bending rules, not breaking them outright, but enough to skew the game.
A Century of Context Meets Trump’s Tenure
Trump’s presidency was a legal gauntlet—76 nationwide injunctions by one count, smashing records. Obama’s peak was 20, Biden’s around 10 through 2024—Trump’s tally triples that in half the time. Why the spike? Policy, for one—his moves, like the 2017 Muslim-majority travel ban or 2020 census tweaks, hit hot buttons fast. Federal courts, especially district ones, pounced—55 injunctions in his first two years alone, per a 2019 study. Compare that to Bush’s eight or Clinton’s five over eight years each, and it’s clear: Trump drew fire like no one else.
The 92% Democratic judge stat tracks too. Trump faced a judiciary stacked with Obama appointees—268 confirmed, outnumbering Trump’s 234 by 2021—and Clinton’s 378 from the ‘90s still lingered. Those benches leaned left—60% of active federal judges in 2017 were Democratic picks. Cases hit their dockets—California, New York, blue strongholds—and injunctions flew. Take the travel ban: Judge James Robart, a Bush appointee, blocked it first, but Obama’s Derrick Watson in Hawaii cemented it. Partisan? Maybe. Timing and turf played a role—Trump’s foes sued where they’d win.
Johnson’s not imagining the friction. “I never walked out thinking I could impeach those judges,” he said—just raced to appeals. But this flood’s different, he insists—activism’s hit a peak. The White House backs his gripe—Trump’s team flagged the same 62% figure, railing against “judge shopping” by groups like the ACLU. It’s a system bent, they say—not broken, but creaking under partisan weight.
Checks, Balances, and a Call for Correction
Johnson sees a fix ahead. “I’m looking forward to working with Chairman Jim Jordan in the House Judiciary Committee to sort through this,” he said—probing remedies, not just griping. What’s on the table? Tough to pin—curbing injunction scope, tweaking venue rules, or jawboning judicial overreach. He’s not naive—checks and balances mean clashes—but when 62% of a century’s blocks hit one guy, and 92% skew one way, it’s not just tug-of-war; it’s a rout.
The founders built this messiness in—Madison’s Federalist 51 crows about “ambition countering ambition.” Congress checks the president, courts check both—Trump’s wall funds got axed by a California judge in 2019, Obama’s DACA push stalled in Texas in 2015. It’s the gig. But Johnson’s point stings: if judges lean too hard one way, co-equal turns lopsided. Democratic appointees aren’t robots—studies show they rule left 60% of the time, GOP picks right 55%—but the Trump pile-on’s sheer volume raises flags. Was it policy, politics, or both?
Real stakes lurk here. Injunctions don’t just pause—they reshape. Trump’s 2020 census citizenship question died after a Maryland judge’s block—data shifted, seats moved. Obama’s Clean Power Plan withered under a Texas ruling—emissions rules lagged years. Johnson’s not wrong to eye the trend—courts aren’t just checking; they’re steering. If 92% of Trump’s hits came from one side’s bench, it’s less balance, more battering.
Our Take
Johnson’s stats land like a gavel—62% of a century’s injunctions slamming Trump, 92% from Democratic judges, isn’t random noise; it’s a signal. The system’s built for friction, not pile-ons, and this skew suggests activism’s outpacing restraint. Trump’s moves—bold, brash—begged pushback, but the lopsided judge split smells like politics, not principle. Jordan’s committee might tweak the edges—venue fixes, maybe—but the deeper fix is harder: courts that check, not choke. Johnson’s onto something—justice bends when one branch leans too heavy, and Trump’s term proves it’s not theory; it’s fact.
