Which district courts issued nationwide injunctions against federal policies during the first 100 days of the 2025 administration?

1. The raw count: CRS’s tally and what it measures

The authoritative count cited across reporting comes from CRS, which documented 25 district-court nationwide injunctions entered between January 20, 2025, and late April 2025, and produced a public table cataloging the cases and orders ^{[1] [3]}. CRS’s dataset counts orders that district courts labeled or treated as nationwide injunctions and excludes stays or vacaturs that accomplished similar effects unless explicitly characterized as injunctions ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Where most nationwide injunctions originated — three districts stand out

Empirical follow-ups note that a disproportionate share of the 25 nationwide injunctions came from just three district courts: Maryland, D.C., and Massachusetts, which together accounted for roughly 16 of the recorded nationwide injunctions in that first-100-days period ^[2]. That clustering is the basis for commentary about forum-shopping and the geographic-political concentration of this form of relief ^[2].

3. High-profile examples and the birthright-citizenship litigation

Several of the most visible nationwide injunctions challenged high-profile executive action, notably litigation over the administration’s birthright-citizenship executive order, in which district courts in multiple venues entered nationwide emergency relief — the CRS table and narrative identify TROs and PIs issued in cases such as Washington v. Trump and related suits brought in D.C. and elsewhere ^{[3] [5]}. CRS details show multiple district courts granting nationwide relief against that particular order, illustrating how a single presidential policy spawned parallel nationwide injunctions in different districts ^[3].

4. The debate over methodology and the thin line to vacatur/stay counts

CRS and legal scholars emphasize methodological choices matter: some district-court orders that halted federal policy used stays or vacatur rather than classic injunction language, and those are sometimes treated differently in counts ^{[4] [6]}. CRS therefore separates formal “nationwide injunctions” from other forms of nationwide relief, while commentators warn that tallying only injunctions can undercount the broader phenomenon of courts halting national policy ^{[4] [6]}.

5. Pushback, politics, and the Supreme Court’s intervention

Critics argued the surge of nationwide injunctions reflected partisan venue-shopping and concentrated judicial activity, fueling legislative proposals and hearings in Congress ^{[1] [2]}. That controversy culminated in a Supreme Court decision in late June 2025 (Trump v. CASA) that substantially curtailed district courts’ power to issue universal or nationwide injunctions — a ruling directly responding to the spike of nationwide orders in early 2025 ^{[7] [8]}. Reporting notes the decision was framed as limiting district courts’ equitable authority and reshaping how future suits against executive actions will be litigated ^{[7] [9]}.

Conclusion: who issued them? — a partial but sourced answer

The best, sourced summary is this: district courts across the federal system issued nationwide injunctions during the first 100 days of the 2025 administration, CRS counted 25 such district-court orders in that window, and follow-on empirical work shows a concentration of those orders in the Districts of Maryland, Columbia, and Massachusetts, with other nationwide orders arising in venues such as Washington and in cases tied to the birthright-citizenship EO ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Public datasets (CRS’s table) list the individual cases and courts; the available reporting and scholarship together provide the clearest contemporaneous map of which district courts were most active in issuing nationwide relief in early 2025 ^{[3] [1]}.