In a landmark 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions to block executive actions. This represents a major shift in judicial authority and a significant win for former President Donald Trump, whose executive order on restricting birthright citizenship had previously been halted by universal injunctions from lower courts. Nationwide injunctions have historically allowed courts to suspend government policies across the country, even beyond the plaintiffs directly involved. The Court’s ruling now limits such injunctions to only those directly affected, effectively ending the practice of using a single court ruling to halt national policies.

The case involved Trump’s order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants, challenging the 14th Amendment. While the Supreme Court did not assess the constitutionality of the order, it struck down nationwide blocks from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Legal scholars remain divided: some argue national injunctions help prevent legal inconsistencies, while others say they lead to politicized, forum-shopped rulings. Republicans, including House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, have long opposed these injunctions and supported legislation like the “No Rogue Judges Act” to limit judicial overreach. The Court’s decision allows Trump’s policy to take effect in parts of the country, potentially setting a precedent that weakens future nationwide legal challenges to presidential actions.