Also see: Full Judge-by-Judge Ruling Tracker
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.
| President | Figure | Source | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| G.W. Bush | 6 | Harvard Law Review, Apr. 2024 ("through 2023") | Total nationwide injunctions issued, full term |
| Obama | 12 | Harvard Law Review, Apr. 2024 | Total nationwide injunctions issued, full term |
| Trump 1.0 | 75 (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 |
| Biden | 21 (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 2.0 | 69 | Idaho Fidelity Foundation's own judicial accountability tracker, every individually verified ruling reviewed and classified case-by-case | Total 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 |
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? Every one of the 117 individually sourced rulings in IFF's own Term 2 judicial accountability tracker was reviewed and classified 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. That is almost exactly half of IFF's 69, over almost exactly half the time period the IFF 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 the 69 the same way CRS would likely treat them. To be upfront, and 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.