In a significant 6–3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal district judges of the authority to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. The conservative-majority Court, with all six GOP-appointed justices in agreement, effectively ended a long-standing practice that allowed lower courts to halt federal policies across the entire country.
This decision marks a major legal and political victory for former President Donald Trump, whose executive order restricting birthright citizenship had been blocked by universal injunctions. The ruling reshapes the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, with potentially lasting implications.
Nationwide injunctions have historically enabled courts to prevent the enforcement of laws or executive orders beyond the specific plaintiffs involved in a case. The Court’s decision now limits such judicial relief strictly to those directly participating in litigation, reinforcing the notion that lower courts must remain within the bounds of their jurisdiction.
The case originated from Trump’s executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants. Many legal scholars and civil rights advocates saw the order as a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s policy itself. Instead, the justices focused solely on whether federal courts can impose nationwide injunctions. The Court overturned injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire that had previously blocked the order nationwide.
Critics of nationwide injunctions argue that they encourage forum shopping, create inconsistent legal standards, and politicize the judiciary. In contrast, supporters contend that such injunctions are sometimes necessary to prevent widespread harm and to maintain legal uniformity across the country.
Republican lawmakers, including House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, have long opposed the use of nationwide injunctions. Jordan has supported legislation like the “No Rogue Judges Act,” which passed the House but is still pending in the Senate. The Supreme Court’s decision now accomplishes much of what that legislation aimed to do, limiting the judiciary’s reach and allowing Trump’s order to move forward in parts of the country.
