[croes]

So why didn’t it happen to such extent before?

[vizzier]

Two reasons I'd guess: Trump has signed as many EOs as biden did in his entire presidency already [1]. Presumably when your executive order contradicts existing law you're more likely to be hit by an injunction.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...

[monocularvision]

It absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.

[ceejayoz]

Limiting and doing away with them aren't the same thing.

I'd love to see higher requirements for issuing them, and an expedited appeals process to review them. I'd like to see protections against judge shopping (as endorsed by both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas...) We know SCOTUS can move very fast when they feel like it.

[JacobGoodson]

trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28

You are incorrect.

[ejstronge]

>trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 >You are incorrect.

You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.

You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

[knowaveragejoe]

> You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

That paints an even more stark picture for the Trump administration.