In recent U.S. history, big presidential policy initiatives have often died in federal district courthouses, like President Obama's DAPA immigration plan, short for deferred action for parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents.

It would have given protection from deportation to millions of immigrants in the U.S. without legal status.

I disagree with the Texas judge's ruling.

Except that in 2015, a district court judge issued a nationwide or universal injunction,

preventing Obama from implementing the law anywhere in the country.

This is not the first time where a lower court judge has blocked something or attempted

to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful.

In fact, the Supreme Court would ultimately deadlock in the case and the policy never took

effect.

The trickle of universal injunctions under Obama became a flood under President Trump. A judge has just blocked our executive

order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries. Trump's policies were blocked by nationwide injunctions 64 times during his first term,

according to a Harvard Law Review article.

And his administration questioned whether judges really had that authority.

This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach.

As presidents have tried to expand the scope of their power,

these universal injunctions have become a major check on the executive.

But politicians on the right and the left have complained of judge shopping.

Conservative plaintiffs' spring cases in Texas,

progressives, file suits in California or Massachusetts, so the claim is more likely to come before

a sympathetic judge. During the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary

injunction suspending federal approval of the abortion drug methapristone.

In a CNN interview New York, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advised Biden to

...