Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions in Win for Trump Admin, Punts on Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Trump administration a win by limiting the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the president’s agenda.

The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Trump v. Casa, siding with the Trump administration’s challenge to the scope of nationwide injunctions issued against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The Court did not, however, weigh-in on the legality of the birthright-citizenship order itself.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, finding that universal injunctions exceed the authority Congress has given to federal courts. Barrett was joined by the Court’s five other conservative justices.

“The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone. These injunctions—known as ‘universal injunctions’—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Barrett wrote.

The High Court ruled that lower courts cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing its policies against nonparties to the specific case they’re ruling on. For the time being, the justices have partially halted the nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive order. They halted the injunctions in areas where their authority is too broad and prevent the executive branch from developing public guidance related to Trump’s executive order.

Barrett took liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to task for the arguments in her dissenting opinion and apparent lack of interest in the specifics of the scope of judicial authority.

“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,” Barrett said.

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett added.

“JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”

The justices did not address the merit’s of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order and urged lower courts to ensure their injunctions comply with the ruling.

“The Court has shut the door on the abuse of universal injunctions. Today’s decision is a victory for our constitutional separation of powers. Justice Alito’s concurrence sounds the alarm that litigants have been attempting to abuse class actions and standing processes as well and shows that the Court is well aware of the problem and prepared to police those boundaries to shut down judicial activists,” said Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network.

On day one of his presidency, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” declaring the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

As expected, the order immediately faced legal challenges and three federal judges quickly halted it. The 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee dates back to the end of the Civil War, when citizenship was granted to newly freed black slaves. Trump and proponents of the executive order have argued birthright citizenship is being abused to incentivize mass illegal immigration.

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X.

“This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them.”

The president and his supporters have strongly criticized perceived overreach among the federal judges who have blocked Trump’s executive actions. Federal judges have used temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s moves on a wide range of issues, including issues where the president has significant Constitutional authority, such as staffing the executive branch and enforcing immigration law.