Supreme Court's 6-3 Ruling Curbs Nationwide Injunctions, Bolstering Executive Authority

WASHINGTON D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to the Trump administration on June 27, 2025, with a 6-3 ruling that sharply curtailed the power of lower federal courts to issue "nationwide" or "universal" injunctions. This decision, emerging from challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, is expected to streamline the implementation of executive actions, though it did not address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. As noted by commentator Isaac Saul, "The court did not touch the Birthright Citizenship question... But this is nonetheless a huge win for the Trump administration, and likely streamlines executive actions to accomplish their agenda."

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, asserted that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts" under the Judiciary Act of 1789. This statutory interpretation means that federal judges can now, in most cases, only block government policies from being enforced against the specific plaintiffs who brought a lawsuit, rather than across the entire country. The Court emphasized that such broad injunctions lacked sufficient historical precedent.

Crucially, the Supreme Court's ruling did not delve into the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal permanent residency. Instead, by limiting the scope of injunctions, the decision effectively allows the birthright citizenship policy to proceed in states where it had not been specifically challenged. Legal experts anticipate that the fundamental question of the executive order's constitutionality will likely return to the Supreme Court in future litigation.

President Trump hailed the ruling as a "GIANT WIN" and a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," stating it would enable his administration to advance numerous policies previously stalled by judicial blocks. Conversely, critics, including the Court's liberal justices, expressed profound disagreement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution," while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described it as "an existential threat to the rule of law."

The decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape, placing a greater burden on challengers of executive actions to pursue class-action lawsuits or multiple individual cases to achieve broader relief. However, because the ruling was based on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional grounds, Congress retains the power to pass new legislation that could restore the authority of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This leaves the door open for future legislative and judicial battles over the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.