Cruz: 37 Nationwide Injunctions in 2 Months — More Than the Entire 20th Century; “Democrats Today Hate Democracy”

Senator Ted Cruz delivered a blistering attack at an April 2025 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, revealing that 37 nationwide injunctions had been issued against President Trump in just two months — “more than in the entire 20th century.” He compared that number to 32 total against Bush, Obama, and Biden combined from 2001 to 2024 (excluding Trump’s first term). Cruz called the practice “the second phase of lawfare” and declared: “Democrats today hate democracy. They are angry at the voters for re-electing Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate and Republican House, and they engage in lawfare to stop democracy from operating."

"Hypocrisy Is the Tribute Vice Pays to Virtue”

Cruz opened with a literary reference and a political jab.

“It’s long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” he said. “I have to admit, I’m enjoying listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law — after four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen.”

He posed the foundational question: “Who is charged with making policy decisions — elected representatives, elected by the people, or unelected federal judges?”

The expert witness answered: “The law should be enacted by Congress. That’s where the fountain of law is. The policy decisions are the elected branch. Law is the province of the court. Policy is the province of the elected branches.”

Cruz confirmed the simplicity: “These are not complicated.”

The Constitutional Questions

Cruz walked through the legal foundations — or their absence.

“Do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case?” Cruz asked constitutional scholar Professor Samuel Bray.

“That’s a question I agree is not complicated,” Bray replied. “They do not have that power.”

“Is the phrase ‘nationwide injunction’ or ‘universal injunction’ found anywhere in the Constitution?”

“It is not.”

Cruz had established in two questions what Senator Kennedy had established in four: universal injunctions had no constitutional basis and were issued by courts without the power to bind non-parties. The practice was judicial invention, not constitutional interpretation.

The Numbers: “Let That Sink In”

Cruz then presented the historical data that made the case irrefutable.

“In the first 150 years of our Republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued?” Cruz asked.

Bray answered: “My view is that there were not any until 1963.”

“Zero,” Cruz confirmed.

“How many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century?”

“It’s a small number. I would think it would be a dozen, give or take.”

“27, actually,” Cruz said.

He then isolated the partisan pattern. “Excluding Trump’s first term, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last 20 years?” Cruz asked. “From 2001 to 2024, against Biden, Obama, and Bush?”

“32.”

“And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone?”

“There have been quite a few.”

“37.”

Cruz paused for effect: “Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against President Trump than in the entire 20th century.”

He extended the comparison: “There have been more nationwide injunctions against President Trump in the last two months than both terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama, and Joe Biden’s term.”

The 37-to-27 comparison — two months versus one hundred years — was the single most devastating statistic in the entire nationwide injunction debate. No amount of legal theory, historical analysis, or constitutional argument could match the raw eloquence of that comparison. The judicial system had deployed more extraordinary interventions against a single president in sixty days than it had deployed against all presidents in a century.

”The Second Phase of Lawfare”

Cruz connected the injunction abuse to the broader pattern of legal attacks on Trump.

“We saw during the Biden presidency lawfare — indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery of justice to attack him,” Cruz said. “And that was an attack on democracy.”

He identified the current phase: “Understand, this is the second phase of lawfare. This is the second phase. Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re-electing him have failed, they’re going and seeking out individual radical judges to try to shut down policies.”

Cruz described the mechanism: “And they are forum shopping like crazy. You could give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with the policy.”

He cited a specific example: “We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore U.S. immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. U.S. law explicitly said there’s no judicial review for that. But hey, they found a judge who says, you know what — we the Democrat Party, we are the party of illegal aliens.”

The two-phase lawfare framework was Cruz’s most important analytical contribution. Phase one — the indictments — had attempted to prevent Trump from reaching the presidency. Phase two — the injunctions — was attempting to prevent him from governing once in office. Both phases used the legal system to override democratic outcomes: the first tried to keep Trump off the ballot, the second tried to block the policies he was elected to implement.

”Democrats Today Hate Democracy”

Cruz delivered his most provocative statement.

“Democrats today hate democracy,” he said. “Democrats today are angry at the voters for re-electing Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and they engage in lawfare to stop democracy from operating.”

He cited the party’s standing: “The reason the Democrat Party is at 26% approval nationwide — because they put radical policies ahead of the rule of law.”

The 26% approval figure, if accurate, would represent the lowest party approval in modern polling history. Cruz was arguing that the lawfare strategy was not just unconstitutional but also politically self-destructive — the more Democrats used courts to block elected governance, the more voters turned against them.

”Rein In the Abuse of Power”

Cruz concluded with the call to action.

“Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power,” he said. “It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders. And it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided.”

The formulation — “trying to overturn the election” — was the most politically charged framing possible. Democrats had spent years accusing Trump of attempting to overturn elections. Cruz was turning the accusation back on them: by using unelected judges to block the policies an elected president was implementing, Democrats were engaged in their own form of election nullification.

Key Takeaways

• Cruz revealed 37 nationwide injunctions against Trump in two months — more than the 27 issued in the entire 20th century.
• Comparison: 32 total against Bush, Obama, and Biden from 2001-2024 (excluding Trump I) vs. 37 against Trump in 60 days.
• He called it “the second phase of lawfare” after the failed indictments: “Now they’re seeking out radical judges to shut down policies.”
• Cruz: “Democrats today hate democracy. They are angry at the voters and engage in lawfare to stop democracy from operating.”
• His conclusion: “It is incumbent on this committee to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges trying to overturn the election.”