WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 7:  (AFP OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump listens as he meets with county sheriffs during a listening session in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on February 7, 2017 in Washington, DC.  The Trump administration will return to court Tuesday to argue it has broad authority over national security and to demand reinstatement of a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries that stranded refugees and triggered protests. (Photo by Andrew Harrer/Pool/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Andrew Harrer/Pool/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 7: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump listens as he meets with county sheriffs during a listening session in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on February 7, 2017 in Washington, DC. The Trump administration will return to court Tuesday to argue it has broad authority over national security and to demand reinstatement of a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries that stranded refugees and triggered protests. (Photo by Andrew Harrer/Pool/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:21
Supreme Court hearing arguments over travel ban
muslim ban jake tapper fact check orig nws_00002104.jpg
muslim ban jake tapper fact check orig nws_00002104.jpg
Now playing
03:45
Is travel ban a 'total and complete' Muslim ban?
trump travel ban
PHOTO: CNN
trump travel ban
Now playing
01:39
Trump reacts to travel ban ruling
PHOTO: Jeremy Moorhead/CNN
Now playing
02:19
Voices divided on travel ban ruling
travel ban trump then and now orig nws_00002328.jpg
travel ban trump then and now orig nws_00002328.jpg
Now playing
01:23
Trump's travel ban then and now
PHOTO: CNN
Now playing
01:53
The seven countries banned by Trump
PHOTO: CNN
Now playing
00:57
Toobin: This is Muslim ban dressed in a tutu
Now playing
01:42
Senator: Supreme Court abandoned responsibility
WASHINGTON - MARCH 08:  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Thomas and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
WASHINGTON - MARCH 08: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Thomas and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now playing
00:58
Justice Kennedy harshly critiques Trump
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. Today the high court is hearing arguments in Chavez-Mesa v. US, which concerns a technical matter regarding sentencing guidelines. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be representing the government. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. Today the high court is hearing arguments in Chavez-Mesa v. US, which concerns a technical matter regarding sentencing guidelines. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be representing the government. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:48
Supreme Court upholds Trump's travel ban
CHICAGO - SEPTEMBER 25: Travelers with their baggage are seen in a check-in line September 25, 2006 at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. The TSA announced today they have slightly relaxed the ban on carrying some liquids onto passenger flights to allow most toiletries and beverages bought after the security checkpoints.  (Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Tim Boyle/Getty Images North America/Getty Images
CHICAGO - SEPTEMBER 25: Travelers with their baggage are seen in a check-in line September 25, 2006 at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. The TSA announced today they have slightly relaxed the ban on carrying some liquids onto passenger flights to allow most toiletries and beverages bought after the security checkpoints. (Photo by Tim Boyle/Getty Images)
Now playing
01:31
Trump's latest travel ban
Now playing
04:04
Listen as lawyers argue travel ban case
President Donald Trump smiles during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2017.
PHOTO: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump smiles during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2017.
Now playing
02:36
Court cites Trump tweets in travel ban ruling
travel ban immigrant families althaibani
PHOTO: CNN, Family Photos
travel ban immigrant families althaibani
Now playing
02:29
Families in limbo over Trump's travel ban
Now playing
01:14
Jeff Sessions: Travel ban protects Americans
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 01:  U.S. President Donald Trump announces his decision for the United States to pull out of the Paris climate agreement in the Rose Garden at the White House June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the accord, which former President Barack Obama and the leaders of 194 other countries signed in 2015. The agreement is intended to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit global warming to a manageable level.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
PHOTO: Win McNamee/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 01: U.S. President Donald Trump announces his decision for the United States to pull out of the Paris climate agreement in the Rose Garden at the White House June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the accord, which former President Barack Obama and the leaders of 194 other countries signed in 2015. The agreement is intended to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit global warming to a manageable level. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Now playing
02:30
Trump pushes travel ban in tweetstorm
(CNN) —  

Most of the attention at Wednesday’s dramatic Supreme Court hearing will center on President Donald Trump’s travel ban, but a second major legal issue lurks in the case that could affect future White House occupants as well: the propriety of federal courts issuing nationwide injunctions that can bring a president’s policy goals to a screeching halt.

In the case at hand, a district judge in Honolulu issued an injunction barring all enforcement of the travel ban, then the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the injunction, but the Supreme Court issued an order allowing the entire travel ban to go into effect pending appeal.

Now, as the government asks the justices to rule on the legality of the ban, it is also asking them to hold that the district court injunction was “impermissibly overbroad.”

The justices do not have to reach the issue in the case, but court watchers are eager to see if any of the justices are interested by the question and could decide to shed light on whether courts should limit the relief to the parties before them.

Nationwide injunctions are a relatively new phenomenon but they have had a big impact on Trump’s policies, most notably in regard to the travel ban as well as the President’s bid to keep federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that have policies designed to limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

The administration is clearly troubled by the trend.

Earlier this month, Assistant Attorney General Beth Williams gave a speech at the American Bar Association noting that there were no examples of nationwide injunctions before 1963 and that by Justice Department estimates, the courts issued an average of only 1.5 nationwide injunctions per year against the Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and 2.5 per year against the Obama administration.

But in Trump’s first year, she said, “judges issued a whopping 20 nationwide injunctions – an eightfold increase.”

The enormous uptick matches the entire eight-year total under the Obama administration and should “draw alarm,” Williams said. The use of the injunctions “strikes at the heart of our democratic system” and allows “unelected judges to second-guess the domestic policy and national security decisions of our elected officials.”

Stephen Vladeck, CNN’s Supreme Court analyst and a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, believes that courts might simply be reacting to the breadth and novelty of some of Trump’s policies.

“One can’t have a conversation about the uptick of nationwide injunctions without having a conversation about the novelty of the policies being enjoined,” he said.

In the case at hand, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that a nationwide injunction concerning a third version of the ban was appropriate because “piecemeal” relief would “fragment immigration policy.”

But the court said a “worldwide” injunction would be inappropriate and extend too broadly. It permitted the ban to go into effect for those without bona fide connections to people or entities in the United States.

Neal Katyal, arguing Wednesday’s case for the challengers, says the district court injunction was the proper remedy because it ensured that the immigration system is “uniform” and because a targeted injunction “would create a fragmented immigration system” in violation of constitutional mandates.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, on the other hand, argues that courts’ preference for “uniform enforcement” cannot justify “barring enforcement of huge swaths” of the ban based on injury to “at most a handful of individuals.”

“Many of the current critics of nationwide injunctions, such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, were supporters of the very same relief when it was used to block controversial policies pursued by President Obama,” Vladeck said. “That’s why I’d be surprised if the justices went out of their way to foreclose these kinds of orders across the board even if they think the courts erred in this case.”