In a decision with far-reaching implications for the federal judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a significant victory for President Donald Trump by restricting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies.
In a 6–3 ruling split along ideological lines, the Court decided in Trump v. Casa that federal district courts overstepped their authority by halting Trump’s controversial birthright citizenship executive order across the entire country. While the Court did not rule on the legality of the order itself, it sharply curtailed the scope of injunctions lower courts can issue.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, argued that universal—or nationwide—injunctions exceed the authority granted by Congress to federal courts.
“These injunctions—known as ‘universal injunctions’—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Barrett wrote. “District courts cannot prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against individuals who are not part of the lawsuit.”
The decision represents a major shift in how federal policy can be challenged and enforced in court, limiting the ability of lower courts to singlehandedly derail presidential initiatives on a national scale.
Background: Trump’s Executive Order on Citizenship
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” claiming that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship does not apply to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. The order faced immediate legal challenges, and several federal judges issued nationwide injunctions halting its enforcement.
The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” a clause originally intended to ensure citizenship for newly freed Black Americans. Critics of Trump’s order called it unconstitutional, while supporters argued the clause is being abused to incentivize illegal immigration through so-called “birth tourism.”
Barrett Clashes with Jackson in Opinions
Justice Barrett took aim at dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a sharply worded majority opinion. She accused Jackson of straying from legal precedent and relying on arguments untethered to the Constitution or federal law.
“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote, further adding, “JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Barrett concluded by stating, “Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law. That goes for judges too.”
Justice Jackson, in her dissent, warned that the decision strips courts of their ability to fully protect rights when executive actions potentially harm large groups of people.
Impact: A Blow to Judicial Activism?
While the ruling does not resolve the legal debate over birthright citizenship, it sends a clear message to lower courts: injunctions must be narrowly tailored to the parties involved in a given case. The justices instructed lower courts to revise any overly broad injunctions in line with the new ruling.
Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, praised the decision as a “victory for our constitutional separation of powers,” adding that the Court is now prepared to push back against what it views as judicial overreach.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, warned that plaintiffs and judges have been stretching the limits of class-action lawsuits and standing doctrine to block presidential policies nationwide.
Political Reactions and Next Steps
President Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “GIANT WIN” and claiming it undercuts what he referred to as the “Birthright Citizenship Hoax.”
“It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump posted.
Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed that sentiment on X (formerly Twitter), declaring, “Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump.”
She added that the Department of Justice will “continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them.”
A New Chapter in Separation of Powers
The ruling marks a turning point in the tug-of-war between the executive and judicial branches. In recent years, federal judges have used nationwide injunctions to block Trump-era policies ranging from immigration enforcement to executive staffing decisions. Critics on the right have called these rulings evidence of partisan judicial activism, while defenders argue that such measures are necessary to check presidential overreach.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has signaled that it is prepared to more tightly police the boundaries of judicial power—and perhaps rein in what it sees as a growing trend of courts acting beyond their constitutional remit.
