Attorney General Jeff Sessions criticized federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit after they ruled Monday that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case last year, arguing that if Congress intended the law to cover sexual orientation, lawmakers would have explicitly included that language. Sessions, speaking to a group of state attorneys general in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, said the court's ruling goes against those of nine other circuit courts, and noted the Second Circuit originally ruled the opposite, but that the court, sitting en banc, reversed its own precedent.

“We believe we're on the right principle there,” Sessions said. “And I guess maybe the judges woke up that morning, read the New York Times or something, and decided their previous ruling was wrong.”

The Second Circuit is the latest appeals court to rule that Title VII bars LGBT discrimination in employment, following the Seventh Circuit last year. In the court's ruling Monday, the majority opinion mentioned the “changing legal landscape” around the issue.

Sessions also echoed his previous criticisms of district court judges who have issued nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration's policies, such as the travel ban executive orders and the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Sessions said courts have entered 20 nationwide injunctions against the administration this year, more than any other president. He said plaintiffs and lawyers have “judge-shopped around the country” to get “favorable outcomes.”

“Nationwide injunctions like the one in [the travel ban] case are a growing problem,” Sessions said.

The rally against nationwide injunctions is a familiar refrain for Sessions, who often mentions the issue in speeches. Recently, the Justice Department discussed nationwide injunctions in a filing with the U.S. Supreme Court in the travel ban case, calling the actions by courts “disturbing.” The high court is set to hear that case in April.