This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A war is developing over local judges across the country, who are assigned to handle cases in their own districts, suddenly deciding they are able to make decisions reserved for the executive branch, in fact, President Donald Trump.

They do this through taking a local case, one often that has been presented to them by plaintiffs who know the judge's political agenda and like it, and issuing injunctions that cover the entire nation, not just their district.

Now there's a warning the Democrats may not like the results of the fight they are pursuing. It's through a series of appeals by the administration of President Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court, where there's now a majority that is considered on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

One of those, Justice Samuel Alito, noted in an earlier case that it was frustrating for those local judges to be able to control the federal government and its actions.

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" he challenged when the court allowed that order to stand.

Trump had suspended those payments through USAID because of the massive questions about the political and ideological agenda being pushed by the agency with tax dollars, programs that, in fact, often worked against the priorities of the United States.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt offered a very simple solution available to those judges.

Her comments came after a Clinton-aligned judge ordered the Trump administration to re-hire thousands of federal employees who had been dismissed under Trump's cost- and fraud-cutting programs.

"A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," she said. "The president has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the president's agenda."

She turned to mockery: "If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for president themselves."

The Washington Examiner reported the judges ruling against Trump's agenda so far have been in "strategically chosen courts."

And Trump has gone to the Supreme Court, challenging lower courts' decisions on his birthright citizenship issue and other issues.

"Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris explained, among the more than 100 lawsuits against Trump's agenda already.

One of the latest flareups happened when a judge in California, William Alsup, picked by Bill Clinton, "issued a sweeping order requiring six federal agencies to reinstate immediately thousands of probationary employees fired by the administration last month."

The report noted five years ago, Justice Neil Gorsuch warned nationwide injunctions create an "asymmetric" legal battlefield in which any policy can be halted by one judge, even if others would uphold it.

In fact, judges, such as Adam B. Abelson, have gone so far as to expand their authority to rule on all of Trump's cleanup plans for the corrupt DEI practices across all agencies.

One case already before the court offers the chance for the Supreme Court to undermine the political activism by district judges.

The report explained, "The case centers on a Texas judge, Amos Mazzant, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who ruled that a federal law requiring businesses to disclose ownership information was unconstitutional. But Mazzant went further — he issued a nationwide injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law at all."

The end result, ultimately, could be for "trial judges to issue more targeted orders that apply solely to the plaintiffs involved," the report said.

"When a single judge can grant a nationwide preliminary injunction, it makes it easier for parties to identify the very few outlier judges who do rule more predictably," an expert explained.