The Supreme Court delivers a major victory for President Trump, curtailing the power of lower courts to block executive orders on immigration with nationwide injunctions.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order
- The ruling focuses on courts’ authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789, not on the constitutionality of denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
- Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as a significant win for presidential authority against judicial overreach
- The decision will impact over 300 federal lawsuits challenging White House initiatives since President Trump began his second term
- Conservative justices expressed concerns about lower courts exceeding their authority, while liberal justices worried about increasing individual lawsuits
Supreme Court Limits Lower Courts’ Power Against Presidential Authority
In a significant 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has granted President Trump a partial victory by limiting the ability of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against his executive order on birthright citizenship. The ruling does not address the constitutionality of the order itself, which aims to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally. Instead, the Court focused on whether federal district courts have the authority to block presidential actions across the entire country through universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized the limited scope of the court’s authority: “The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,” Barrett further clarified the Court’s position, stating, “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.”
Biden Administration and Trump’s Executive Actions
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling as a significant victory for the Trump administration, which has faced numerous nationwide injunctions against its immigration policies. “Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Bondi declared. She emphasized that the Justice Department will continue defending the President’s policies and executive authority against judicial overreach that has hampered implementation of critical immigration reforms designed to protect American citizens first.
“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” said Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General
The decision has far-reaching implications for the more than 300 federal lawsuits challenging various White House actions since Trump began his second term in January 2025. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued during proceedings that lower courts have consistently overstepped their constitutional boundaries with universal injunctions, effectively enabling a single district judge to halt presidential initiatives nationwide. This practice has significantly impeded the administration’s ability to implement its agenda, particularly regarding immigration enforcement and border security.
Divided Court Reveals Deeper Constitutional Tensions
The decision exposed clear ideological divisions among the justices. Conservative members of the Court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have consistently criticized universal injunctions as judicial overreach. Meanwhile, liberal justices expressed practical concerns about the ruling’s consequences. Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the administration’s position, asking: “Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument. If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power.”
“Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to support your argument. If that’s true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn’t have that power,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted practical challenges that could arise if universal injunctions are severely limited, pointing out the logistical impossibility of the Supreme Court handling all issues currently managed by lower courts. The ruling represents a significant shift in how the judicial system interacts with executive power, potentially giving President Trump greater latitude to implement immigration policies without immediate nationwide obstruction from lower courts. This rebalancing of power between the judiciary and executive branches aligns with conservative views on constitutional separation of powers.
