Which of President Obama's executive orders were overturned or limited by federal courts?
Executive summary
Federal courts during and after the Obama administration blocked or limited several high-profile Obama-era executive actions — notably immigration directives like DACA/DAPA and other agency rules — with district and appellate courts issuing injunctions or vacating parts of agency actions (Harvard Law Review tally of 12 district-court freezes; DOJ/CRS counts of roughly 19–20 nationwide injunctions during Obama) [1] [2]. The Supreme Court later constrained the remedy courts could use by limiting so-called “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions in Trump v. CASA, a decision that changes how such Obama-era blocks would be applied going forward [3].
1. What courts actually did to Obama orders — not a single list, but patterns
Federal judges used injunctions, stays and vacatur to halt implementation of Obama administration policies. Scholars and government tallies show courts issued dozens of nationwide injunctions during recent presidencies, and district courts issued a record number of rulings freezing Obama policies (a Harvard Law Review tally cited 12 such district-court freezes), while the Department of Justice/CRS numbers put nationwide injunctions against Obama at roughly 19–20 in earlier counts [1] [2].
2. The most litigated example: immigration rules (DACA, DAPA and related actions)
Immigration directives drew repeated litigation. Courts enjoined or limited Obama administration immigration programs; nationwide injunctions and other orders blocked aspects of Deferred Action programs and related implementation. Reporting and legal summaries note that nationwide injunctions were used against Obama policies including DAPA and DACA-related litigation [4] [1].
3. Supreme Court and appeals-court pushes against Obama legal positions
Multiple Supreme Court and circuit decisions rejected legal arguments advanced by the Obama administration across varied fields — from NLRB appointments (Noel Canning) to environmental and administrative-law positions — reflecting that courts limited or reversed executive-branch legal positions even when not framed as direct “overturning” of numbered executive orders (a GOP Senate compilation and public analyses list dozens of such rejections) [5] [6].
4. Distinction: injunctions, vacatur and “overturning” are different remedies
Courts do not “revoke” executive orders the way a later president can; instead they enjoin enforcement, vacate agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, or rule administration legal positions unlawful in particular cases. CRS and legal commentary emphasize that courts often halt a policy through stays or vacatur rather than an order labeled “overturned,” and those remedies could halt national application of a policy even when only one court issues the ruling [2].
5. The nationwide-injunction controversy and why it matters to the Obama record
A running controversy has been judges issuing injunctions that apply nationwide. That practice was used frequently against Obama policies and produced political backlash; a Harvard Law Review tally and DOJ/CRS summaries documented many such freezes of Obama-era actions [1] [2]. The Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA curtailed district courts’ ability to issue universal injunctions, changing how future challenges to executive actions — including those like Obama’s that were once enjoined nationwide — will be addressed [3] [7].
6. What this means for claims that “Obama orders were overturned”
Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative list of individual Obama executive order numbers that were categorically “overturned” by courts. Instead, reporting and legal literature show a mixture: (a) some Obama administration rules and policies were enjoined or vacated in litigation; (b) courts rejected many Obama-era legal positions in appellate and Supreme Court rulings; and (c) the nationwide scope of many injunctions has since been limited by the Supreme Court [2] [3] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas in the reporting
Conservative outlets and officials emphasize courtroom setbacks as proof of “executive overreach” by Obama and catalog Supreme Court or appellate rebukes [5]. Legal scholars and civil-rights advocates counter that courts historically have protected plaintiffs’ rights via nationwide relief and that limiting universal injunctions narrows access to uniform relief [8] [7]. Both sides use counts of injunctions to support policy arguments; CRS and DOJ data are invoked selectively in those debates [2] [1].
8. Bottom line for a reader seeking specifics
If you want a precise list of named executive-order numbers that courts struck down, available sources do not provide a consolidated catalog in this search set; instead rely on case-by-case litigation histories (immigration DACA/DAPA litigation is the clearest, repeatedly enjoined example) and compilations of judicial decisions rejecting administration legal positions [1] [5]. The legal landscape has shifted after Trump v. CASA, so earlier nationwide injunctions against Obama-era policies are now less likely to be available in the same form [3].