In a famous letter written Dec. 25, 1820, Thomas Jefferson complained that “the Judiciary of the U.S. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.” Donald Trump and his administration now have reason to hold similar beliefs.

Jefferson was irked that the U.S. Supreme Court was giving the federal government too much power; now the Trump administration finds itself blocked by the courts in its efforts to take power from the federal government and to return that power to the people and their state and local governments.

The problem the current administration now faces is an outbreak of what astute commentator Jonathan Turley has called “injunctivitis”—the practice of federal district courts issuing decrees countermanding many of the White House’s executive orders and the actions of executive branch agencies. Lately these have included the president’s declaration ending “birthright citizenship,” cutting off funding for Harvard University, ending support for National Public Radio, closing federal agencies, deporting suspected criminal illegal alien gang members and many other matters.

In many of these cases, the federal court orders have been “nationwide injunctions,” meaning rulings that cover the entire country and parties not before the courts, and which go far beyond the normal, limited jurisdiction of judges assigned to particular districts. Many, if not most, of the judges issuing these nationwide injunctions have been appointed by Democratic presidents, and many of their rulings appear to flow more from the judges’ differences with the president over policies than from a neutral application of the governing laws.