In a 6-3 decision released Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided partially with the federal government in a closely watched case about judicial authority and executive power. The ruling reins in the use of “universal injunctions,” a controversial tool used by federal judges to block nationwide implementation of executive actions. The case, while centered on a Trump-era executive order regarding birthright citizenship, focuses more broadly on the balance of power between the courts and the presidency.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, clarified that the Court was not evaluating the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order but rather addressing whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 permits lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. “The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Barrett wrote. The ruling leaves the door open for future constitutional challenges but immediately directs district courts to ensure that any injunctions are narrowly tailored to the plaintiffs in each case.
The decision includes a 30-day stay, temporarily halting enforcement of the executive order. The lower courts were also instructed to act quickly in modifying or maintaining their injunctions under the Court’s guidance. The outcome limits the power of a single judge to halt nationwide enforcement of federal policy—an increasingly frequent phenomenon in recent years.
Three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented forcefully. Sotomayor criticized the ruling as enabling potential constitutional violations, writing that it “is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.” Jackson added that the decision “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular,” suggesting that individuals without legal resources may struggle to mount separate legal challenges against federal policy.
The Supreme Court had agreed earlier this year to take up the matter after three lower court judges, from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington, issued universal injunctions blocking Trump’s executive order. However, during May’s oral arguments, the justices focused not on the content of the policy but on whether the practice of universal injunctions itself oversteps judicial authority. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such injunctions allow lower courts to unilaterally block a president’s lawful actions without full legal resolution or a national mandate.
The ruling comes amid ongoing legal battles involving presidential authority and a rise in judicial intervention. Over the past several years, federal judges have blocked numerous executive directives—from military policy to regulatory oversight—using universal injunctions. Justices from both ideological camps acknowledged that the practice has spiked in recent administrations, regardless of party, but diverged over the solution.
During oral arguments, the justices grappled with how to set boundaries without encouraging judicial chaos. While supporters of universal injunctions argue they provide needed checks on executive overreach, critics warn they enable unelected judges to nullify federal action across all jurisdictions based on a single case. Justice Kagan noted the practical strain this shift would place on the Supreme Court, which could face a wave of appeals from individual rulings if universal injunctions were curtailed entirely.
Despite the Court’s attempt to clarify procedural boundaries, the broader constitutional debate remains unresolved. For now, the ruling restores some limits on judicial activism, reaffirming that federal courts must act within the bounds of individualized relief unless broader authority is expressly granted. It serves as a reminder that restraining the power of one branch should not come at the expense of the constitutional authority of another. Allowing district judges to halt national policy based on limited challenges risks transforming the judiciary from a check on power into a dominant force overriding it.
