Federal judges have issued at least a dozen nationwide injunctions in response to more than 100 lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies. These rulings have temporarily blocked efforts such as the ban on transgender people serving in the military, an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship and the mass firing of federal probationary workers.

Now, the administration is urging Congress and the Supreme Court to curb the power of federal judges to issue nationwide orders. While some justices have voiced concerns about these rulings, the high court has yet to take action.

Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten argues that these injunctions give judges too much power and go against legal traditions. He warns that if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in, Congress may have to.

The following is an excerpt from the above video:

This practice, a relatively modern one arguably inconsistent with our legal traditions and precedents, results in judges not only issuing rulings going way beyond the parties to cases and controversies before them — and sometimes for parties who don’t even want to be covered — but often in realms that are supposed to be beyond judicial review, while creating massive incentives to judge shop and use the courts as tools of political warfare. After all, if you only have to find one willing judge out of around 700 to paralyze an administration, and you believe the stakes are as important as the president’s opponents, of course you’re gonna do it.

These universal injunctions are particularly egregious, the White House argues, because of how far-reaching they are — touching millions of aliens in America, even though injunctions could have been imposed just covering the plaintiffs’ issues; because the states who brought suit allegedly lacked standing to assert others’ rights; and again because the courts are “restrain[ing] the Executive branch’s internal workings.”