“Some of these bills have been extreme enough to make it not surprising that the courts will take a skeptical view,” said Walter Olson, a legal fellow with the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization in Washington. “When it’s sorted out, they will probably have gained some ground and the courts will probably have approved some of the restrictions, if not all of them.”

Much of the new legislation, even on divisive issues, has not been contested in court. Some challenges have folded quickly, like the sweeping restrictions to collective bargaining in Wisconsin that a judge briefly blocked before they were upheld by the State Supreme Court.

And one does not need to look far to find examples of legislation passed by liberal majorities that have landed in court, not least of which is the legal battle over the national health care plan.

But the rulings are nevertheless likely to bolster the long-held depiction by conservatives of many judges as liberal legislators in robes. Indeed, these interventions are similar to others that conservative groups were reacting to when they opposed judges in retention elections around the country, successfully ousting three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had ruled that same-sex marriage was legal.

“I think at some level they don’t care about the judicial response,” said Sanford V. Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas. “If it’s upheld, that’s great for them. If it’s struck, it adds to the critique of the so-called imperial judiciary.”

Kris W. Kobach, who helped write several of the immigration laws and is now secretary of state for Kansas, said that the past election opened the dam for conservative legislation that had, in some cases, been unable to pass for years. As a result, Mr. Kobach said, “liberal groups have been quicker than usual to rush to the courthouse doors.”

In general, criticism of the injunctions has been muted as the cases move forward. But a conservative outcry arose in Texas against the injunction issued this week by Judge Sam Sparks of Federal District Court, who used politically tinged language to block parts of a new law requiring doctors to perform sonograms on women seeking abortions and to show them the results.