John Marshall on the Supreme Court & Universal Injunctions (Matthew A. Pauley, August 13th, 2025, Imaginative Conservative)
The very first Congress created the federal district courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, shortly after George Washington was sworn in as the first President. Today there are 94 federal district courts, at least one in every state and more in the more heavily populated states.
These courts have statutory jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies “in law and equity.” Equity emerged in England in the Middle Ages when litigants who couldn’t get relief in the ordinary common law courts would petition the king to rectify the injustice. In time, these matters were directed to the king’s right-hand man, the Chancellor, who began to convene courts of equity, where the proceedings were faster and the remedies more flexible.
We do not have separate courts of equity in America today, but when a court sits “in equity,” it can award civil remedies other than money damages, including injunctions, which are essentially court orders prohibiting a certain course of conduct or enforcement of a particular law or policy.
Enforcement of an executive order or law can be enjoined (prohibited) by a court if the law or order is unconstitutional. In the seminal case of Marbury v Madison (1803), Chief Justice Marshall established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, the power to declare acts of Congress or the President unconstitutional and void. Since then, it has come to be accepted that all federal courts, including the district courts, may determine the constitutionality of an act of Congress or the President and even issue injunctions stopping their enforcement, although the Supreme Court is always the highest authority on such matters. To whom, however, may these injunctions be addressed? For almost 200 years, the answer was typically only the litigants in the case. In the last few decades, however, federal district courts have begun to issue “universal” or nation-wide injunctions, applicable not only to the litigants in the case but to everyone in the United States.
Supporters of this enhanced judicial authority defend it as necessary to curb what they see as excessive legislative and especially executive power. Critics, however, point out that it leads to a phenomenon known as forum shopping in which potential plaintiffs (people bringing a civil lawsuit) choose a court likely to be favorable to their case.