The pardon is different to others though. He is pardoning the refusal to follow a court order, not the original offence that resulted in the injunction being filed in the first place. It is not a small check on the power of the courts when that happens, it is completely steamrolling the legal process.
I still think pardons should only be used in the most extreme circumstances, and should be excessively rare. Barely anyone bat an eye when former presidents pardoned hundreds of people on the same day, or pardon someone convicted of espionage and high treason...but pardon someone for ignoring a bench order and everyone loses their shit for reasons completely unrelated to the pardon process.
Personally, pardons should generally only be used for obvious miscarriages of justice, or if some new information becomes known or had to be classified that can now be declassified where we can say "there are extenuating circumstances, and this punishment is now (or always was) unjust". Stuff like that.
And plenty of presidents before have had "pet pardons" they've used for whatever reason they've wanted to in the past. I'm pretty sure I remember plenty of conservatives making a big fuss when Obama did it; but liberals had very little to say, or the argument was "this was a non-issue". But this one is an issue right? And we all know why, because the guy doing it plays for the other team, or he's literally Hitler and about to murder all 150 million people who didn't vote for him, or whatever.
Protip: Don't want presidents doing lots of shitty things you don't like? Reduce the amount of power granted to the branch.
Every single time a president pardons or commutes someone he is nullifying the judiciary. That's the whole idea. It is a small check on the power of the courts. This is just another impeachment fantasy for anti-Trump people to masturbate to until the next one comes out.