The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, a decision that curtails a key legal tool used to block presidential policies across the country. This ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and backed by the conservative majority, marks a significant win for President Donald Trump, who has long criticized such injunctions as judicial overreach. The Court emphasized that judges should only resolve disputes involving the parties before them, not impose sweeping national rulings.
However, the decision leaves unresolved whether Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship can take effect. The order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrants, remains blocked for now. The justices sent the case back to lower courts to revise their rulings in line with the new limits on judicial authority. Enforcement of the policy is paused for 30 days, and the Court acknowledged that broader relief might still be possible through class-action mechanisms.
The ruling drew sharp dissent from the Court’s liberal justices, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning that it could allow unconstitutional policies to be implemented unless every affected individual sues. Critics, including Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, called the decision a dangerous step toward authoritarianism. Meanwhile, rights groups and state attorneys general vowed to continue fighting the birthright citizenship order, arguing it violates the 14th Amendment and longstanding legal precedent. The legal battle now shifts to whether courts can still block the policy effectively without nationwide injunctions.