A pro-Trump group launched an online website Tuesday detailing the more than 250 legal cases against President Trump’s agenda and tracking the crucial nationwide injunctions that were issued by lower court judges before the Supreme Court halted the practice last week.

In all, the Article III Foundation listed 266 lawsuits at JudicialSabotage.org. But there are plenty more of them against the administration, brought by individual plaintiffs such as illegal immigrants looking to stay in the country.

“The primary purpose [of the online database] is so that people can understand the enormous scope of judicial lawfare against the Trump administration. It is not just a few lawsuits. It is overwhelming all over the country,” said Will Chamberlain, senior counsel for the Article III Foundation. “What stuck out was the sheer number of injunctions that have been issued against the administration in such a short amount of time.”

About a third of the 266 lawsuits involve matters related to immigration policy. Other areas include transgender policies, spending and firing freezes, and efforts related to the budget-cutting Department of Government Efficiency.

On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 win for Mr. Trump’s administration, ruling that lower court judges issuing nationwide injunctions likely run afoul of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The case involved a challenge to Mr. Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, but the question that came to the court focused on the authority of district court judges to block nationwide policies after a district court judge issued a national halt to the birthright citizenship order.

Mr. Trump’s Justice Department argued it was unlawful, and that the administration had seen at least 40 nationwide injunctions issued during Mr. Trump’s first four months in office.

Injunctions are court orders that block policies from taking effect. In most cases, the judges issue injunctions that apply just to the parties involved in a case; however, in recent years, lower court judges have issued nationwide injunctions, blocking policies from taking effect nationwide.

In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said challengers could file class actions as a way to contest executive policies.

Hours after the high court’s decision, a class-action suit was launched by the American Civil Liberties Union, representing a pregnant woman and other families who have had a child born since Mr. Trump signed the birthright citizenship order, challenging it as being unconstitutional. That case is pending in federal court in New Hampshire.

Mr. Chamberlain said the issue of injunctions will not go away despite the high court’s ruling, noting they can still be issued in the form of these class-action lawsuits.

“It did not put a stop to judicial lawfare against the president. It just made them use the proper process,” he said.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.