The U.S. Supreme Court held that it is likely that lower courts have surpassed their authority to issue national injunctions on presidential cases, and that it is likely to limit the judicial department’s ability to check executive power.
Friday’s decision responded to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts to block President Donald Trump’s ability to reduce his birthright citizenship.
“A universal injunction is likely to exceed the fair powers Congress has given federal courts,” a majority of the courts said in its decision. “The court will grant government applications for partial stays in the injunction.”
However, the majority added that the decision would apply “only to a wider range than necessary.” The court proposed to the plaintiffs in the immediate case that the injunction could still apply.
The verdict was once again split along party boundaries as six conservative judges formed a majority and three Liberal judges challenged it. Amy Connie Barrett, the court’s latest judge and Trump appointee, wrote down the majority decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory for the Trump administration and denounced “judicial overreach” as an unconstitutional obstacle to its policies. There could be far-reaching effects in other cases where Trump’s agenda is blocked by a low-court injunction.
“Today, the Supreme Court has directed the district court to stop an endless barrage of national injunctions against President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondy wrote on social media platform X.
Trump himself celebrated his decision on Platform Truth Social: “A huge victory at the U.S. Supreme Court!”
However, the Supreme Court decision did not allow Trump’s executive order to be effective immediately.
It provided 30 days before Trump’s order was applied, and ordered lower courts to bring an injunction in line with the new decision. Class action appeals will be submitted within that window.
How did this case arrive at the Supreme Court?
Lower courts have emerged strongly against Trump’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, a right established under the 14th Amendment, adopted in the wake of the US civil war.
The amendment declared in the United States “all people born” and “the subject of their jurisdiction.”
The court repeatedly interpreted the text as granting citizenship to almost all people born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ nationality. There were limited exceptions, including diplomat children.
But in his 2024 re-elect bid, Trump campaigned on a platform where the Fourteenth Amendment is reinterpreted to eliminate undocumented immigrant children.
His platform “will make it clear that illegal alien children will not be given automatic citizenship,” his platform said.
On the first day of his second term on January 20th, he signed an executive order, following that campaign promise, called “Protecting the Meaning and Values of American Citizenship.”
But immigration advocates said Trump’s policies could violate the constitution and render some children stateless. The lower courts sided with them and issued a nationwide injunction banning the executive order from becoming effective.
Injunctions are often used to grant relief to plaintiffs who may face immediate irreparable damages from cases that could otherwise arise.
What did the Supreme Court majority say?
In Friday’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Trump’s proposed interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Instead, it focused on federal court injunctions that obstructed the president’s executive order.
The decision was made on the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 period.
Writing for the majority, Judge Connie Barrett proceeded with the thread of originalism, saying that the judicial system was lost from its original mission with such a wide reach injunction.
“For over a century after that, there was no such thing as an establishment or a universal injunction for that,” she writes.
Connie Barrett continued to explain the increasingly frequent situation under President Joe Biden, particularly by the end of previous administrations.
She noted that in the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, the district court issued about 25 universal injunctions.
“As the number of universal injunctions increases, the importance of this issue has increased,” she wrote on behalf of the majority.
She argued that the injunction had historically a more limited scope relating to the specific parties involved in the case.
“Traditionally, courts have issued injunctions prohibiting enforcement officials from enforcing challenged laws or policies only against plaintiffs in a case,” wrote Connie Barrett.
“Our previous injunction today reflects more recent developments. District Courts argue that they have the power to prohibit enforcement of laws or policies against anyone.”
She added that the president-led administrative department has an “obligation to follow the law,” but the judicial department does not have “unlimited authority” to police it.
What did the Supreme Court opponent say?
But the three left-leaning justice in the court issued fierce opposition, denounced the decision by the majority on Friday as an unprecedented attack on the court system.
Writing on behalf of the objections, Judge Sonia Sotomayor argued that the court circumvented the real issue of the day: the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. That right has been supported again and again by the Supreme Court, she explained.
“Birth citizenship is the law of the land, as all possible sources confirm,” she wrote.
Instead, by focusing on the lower court injunction, Sotomayor argued that the Supreme Court was playing in the hands of the Trump administration.
She said the Trump administration’s focus solely on injunctions could avoid rulings that cut executive orders on birthright citizenship.
“The government does not normally require a full stay of an injunction, as it does before this court. Why is the answer clear? To obtain such relief, the government must show that the order is likely to be constitutional,” writes Sotomayor.
“Therefore, the government is instead trying its hands in another game. No matter how illegal the law or policy is, it asks the court to decide that it can never simply instruct the enforcer to stop enforcement against anyone.”
Sotomayor said the universal injunction is a necessary tool to protect a large group of people, such as immigrants and women, from the harmful effects of such policies. The universal injunction, she explained, empowered the courts “to do full justice, including flexible remedies.”
“By stripping all federal courts, including that power, the courts deprive the judicial powers to prevent enforcers from implementing the most unconstitutional policies,” she wrote.
“I challenge because I will not follow any serious attacks on our legal system.”
How did Donald Trump respond?
Shortly after the Supreme Court decision was announced, Trump himself appeared in the White House press briefing room, where he performed a victory rap with a reporter.
“Well, it was a big thing,” he said in the opening of his remarks.
Trump has long been blaming judges for blocking his policy of being part of the “radical left” and blocking the will of voters who elected him. He repeated those charges on Friday, calling the injunction “a huge abuse of power.”
“The Supreme Court has brought monumental victory for the constitution, separation of power and the rule of law.
“It was, frankly, a serious threat to democracy, and not only adjudicated cases in person before them, these judges tried to determine national law.”
Trump also framed the decision to pave his executive order to ensure that the executive order on birth rights citizenship comes into effect.
“This will get us there and ultimately win that case, because hundreds of thousands of people are poured into our country under birth citizenship,” he said. “And that wasn’t intended for that. It was for the baby slave.”
He then thanked each Conservative judge by name. “They should be extremely proud.”
Attorney General Bondy has indicated that the Supreme Court will determine the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship policy in October.
