Supreme Court Curbs Universal Injunctions in 6-3 Ruling, Reshaping Executive Power

WASHINGTON D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on June 27, 2025, significantly limited the power of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, a ruling that immediately impacts challenges to executive actions, including a controversial order on birthright citizenship. Authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the majority opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. held that such broad injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789, citing a lack of historical precedent for such sweeping remedies.

Universal injunctions, which block government policies nationwide, have become increasingly common in recent years, drawing criticism for their perceived role in encouraging forum shopping and creating an asymmetric litigation landscape. The Court's decision emphasized that equitable relief should generally be tailored to provide "complete relief" only to the specific plaintiffs with standing in a case, rather than extending to all affected parties. The ruling did not address the legality of the underlying executive actions themselves.

The decision arose from multiple lawsuits challenging President Donald J. Trump's Executive Order No. 14160, which sought to redefine American citizenship by denying it to children born in the U.S. whose mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present, and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Lower courts had previously issued universal injunctions against this order, deeming it likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's ruling partially stayed these injunctions, limiting their scope to the named plaintiffs.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharp dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the majority's decision fundamentally misunderstands the nature of equity and diminishes the Judiciary's crucial role in checking executive overreach. She warned that the ruling creates a "zone of lawlessness" where the Executive Branch can enforce potentially unconstitutional policies against individuals who lack the resources or means to file their own lawsuits.

The implications of this ruling are far-reaching for future legal challenges against federal policies. Commenting on the stability of the decision, "Sidharth" stated on social media, "Yep. I do not think the Supreme Court will overrule this decision." While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order, its decision on universal injunctions significantly alters the procedural landscape for those seeking to challenge federal government actions.