Supreme Court's 6-3 Decision Curbs Universal Injunctions, Ignites Debate Over Judicial Legitimacy

Washington D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2025, significantly curtailed the power of lower federal courts to issue universal injunctions, which broadly block government policies nationwide. The ruling in Trump v. Casa, Inc., centered on challenges to President Donald J. Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, aimed at redefining birthright citizenship. This decision has drawn sharp criticism from legal observers, including John Jackson, who questioned the Court's legitimacy.

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, argued that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court asserted that such broad remedies lack a historical pedigree in English or early American equity practice, emphasizing that traditional injunctions were typically "party-specific." The ruling partially stayed the universal injunctions issued by lower courts against Executive Order 14160, directing them to tailor relief to individual plaintiffs.

President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 sought to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship, specifically for children born in the U.S. to mothers unlawfully present or temporarily present, and fathers who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Federal district courts had previously issued universal injunctions, finding the order likely unconstitutional and its enforcement would cause irreparable harm. These lower court rulings were upheld by three Courts of Appeals.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, vehemently criticized the majority, stating, "The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." She warned that this "renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit." Justice Jackson's separate dissent further cautioned that the ruling creates a "zone of lawlessness" and poses an "existential threat to the rule of law."

Reacting to the implications of such judicial intervention, John Jackson, a public commentator, stated in a tweet, "> "This is a huge test for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. There is zero basis to intervene here. The District Court made factual findings, and they are unassailable in a pretrial appeal unless clearly erroneous. If SCOTUS intervenes for Trump, it is a failed institution." His comments underscore concerns that the Court's decision, by limiting the scope of injunctions, effectively intervenes in favor of the Trump administration without addressing the merits of the Executive Order's constitutionality or respecting lower court factual findings.

The Supreme Court's decision is expected to significantly alter the landscape of legal challenges to executive actions, potentially increasing the burden on plaintiffs to seek individual relief and raising questions about the judiciary's ability to provide comprehensive checks on executive power. The ruling sends the cases back to lower courts to determine appropriate, narrower injunctions.