Has Trump faced more deportation-related court injunctions than his predecessors?

President Donald Trump’s administration deported thousands of people during his second term’s first 100 days. Sometimes, courts stood in his way.

Social media users claimed the number of injunctions he faced for deportations far outnumbered injunctions against previous presidents. Podcast host Alec Lace shared a graphic on X comparing Trump’s and other presidents’ deportation records and the number of related injunctions they faced. 

Elon Musk, a billionaire business owner and Trump adviser, amplified the April 19 post, which included the following figures:

• Bill Clinton: 12.3 million deportations, 0 injunctions

• George W. Bush: 10.3 million deportations, 0 injunctions

  Sign up for PolitiFact texts

• Barack Obama: 5.3 million deportations, 0 injunctions

• Donald Trump: 100,000 deportations, 30 injunctions

"Trump: fewest deportations, most court blocks," wrote cryptocurrency show host Mario Nawfal, resharing the graphic on X.

It’s accurate that Trump has faced more injunctions related to his immigration actions than other recent presidents. Only one of the other presidents listed in the post, Barack Obama, faced an injunction for an immigration-related action, and the action was related to keeping immigrants in the country rather than deporting them. Experts told PolitiFact the difference in the presidents’ injunctions numbers is because Trump’s actions have challenged constitutional norms.  

The post did not include injunction figures from Trump’s first term or former President Joe Biden’s time in office. 

Lace told PolitiFact his numbers relied on information from the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute, CNN, Fox News and X’s AI chatbot, Grok. He said he included "injunctions related to deportations only." He did not respond to a follow-up question about how he defined deportation.

The federal government defines deportation as removing noncitizens from the U.S. "for violating immigration law." Deportation numbers in the post matched those from a 2017 Migration Policy Institute report. They included removals, or deportations based on an immigration court order, and returns, which involve returning people who arrive at the U.S. border to their home countries without formal removal proceedings. 

During Clinton’s two terms in office and Bush’s two terms, the majority of the deportations were returns, a Migration Policy Institute analysis showed. 

As of April 29, the Department of Homeland Security said there have been more than 142,000 deportations since Trump started his second term, but has not released a detailed breakdown.

Government and think tank injunction counts are different from social media post

For the number of injunctions during Trump’s current tenure, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said March 23 it was "roughly 30," the same number Lace’s X post cited. Miller did not specify that the injunctions were immigration-related.

Generally, nationwide injunctions aim to block government policies from being enforced not only against plaintiffs in a case but also against anyone in the nation. But what counts as a nationwide injunction can vary depending on who is doing the counting — there's no formal legal definition. Injunctions can be either permanent or preliminary, and also include temporary restraining orders. 

A Congressional Research Service report showed 17 nationwide injunctions from Jan. 20, when Trump was inaugurated, to March 27, and it categorized only one under immigration. The report listed injunctions against Trump’s actions related to federal funding, birthright citizenship, federal employment, information disclosure, military service and diversity, equity and inclusion. This count excluded injunctions that affected only states, state officials or private parties.

PolitiFact also referenced a litigation tracker published and updated by Lawfare, a blog connected to the policy think tank Brookings Institution. Between both the Congressional Research Service report and Lawfare, we identified 60 lawsuits from Jan. 20 to April 29 in which a judge ordered an injunction. They included nationwide injunctions and those that affected states, organizations and individuals, regardless of whether the injunction was appealed or later overturned. Of those 60, 20 involved deportation or immigration actions.

PolitiFact’s count includes lawsuits related to Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, visa terminations, detentions, Alien Enemies Act deportations and immigration enforcement.

Injunctions across presidencies

Among injunctions for all issues — not just those related to immigration — a Harvard Law Review count showed 12 nationwide injunctions against Clinton’s policies; six against Bush’s; 12 against Obama’s; 64 against Trump’s during his first term; and 14 against Biden’s. The law review data showed no injunctions against Clinton’s and Bush’s deportation actions.

Juan Caballero, immigration clinic director at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, pointed to an injunction issued against Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, commonly known as DAPA, which would have delayed the deportation of unauthorized immigrants who met certain criteria. A Texas U.S. District Court judge said that Obama’s action violated the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act.

Jennifer Gordon, Fordham Law School professor, referred to the Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas case during Biden’s term. Plaintiffs in that case obtained a September 2021 court order preventing families from being expelled, "on the grounds that the Title 42 statute did not authorize expulsions." 

Under federal law, Title 42 goes into effect if the U.S. surgeon general believes there is danger of immigration introducing a communicable disease to the U.S.; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention invoked it in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Title 42 was in place from 2020 to 2023 and allowed border officials to expel people arriving at the border who were seeking asylum.

Experts say Trump has challenged constitutional norms 

Immigration experts we spoke to said Trump’s rapid-fire approach to implementing immigration policy stands apart from prior administrations and has lent itself to greater legal scrutiny.

"It would not be a surprise that Trump’s executive actions on immigration have been enjoined far more than past presidents given his penchant for shooting first and aiming later," Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for American Immigration Lawyers Association, said. 

He pointed to the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador  without appearing before an immigration judge, and despite a 2019 court order that prohibited the government from deporting him to that country. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April that the U.S. government should "facilitate" his release.

"Many, if not all, of these injunctions come from cases raising due process claims against the policies the Trump administration is pursuing," Caballero said.

Fordham’s Gordon said the injunctions show courts are doing what they were set up to do. "President Trump is seeking to deport immigrants without proving that they have done anything wrong, based on new and highly contested legal theories," she said. "The courts are doing their job: stopping him from removing people from the United States unless the government acts in a way that complies with the law."

PolitiFact Staff Writer Maria Ramirez Uribe contributed to this report. ​