In a significant ruling on Friday, June 27, 20255, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the use of nationwide injunctions, limiting the authority of federal judges to issue broad orders that halt the implementation of presidential policies. The decision, which stems from ongoing litigation over President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, marks a turning point in how courts can intervene in federal actions.
The Court ruled 6-3 that such sweeping judicial measures likely go beyond the equitable powers granted to federal courts by Congress. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that federal courts are not vested with general oversight over the executive branch. Instead, she argued, their role is to adjudicate specific disputes brought before them.
“Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.’ But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Barrett wrote. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
While the Court did not decide on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, it granted the administration’s request to scale back the scope of existing injunctions—though only “to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief” to the named plaintiffs, Barrett added. Federal agencies now have 30 days to issue public guidance, providing a window for additional legal challenges.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority for failing to protect constitutional principles.
“With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the court gives way.”
She also delivered portions of her dissent from the bench, underscoring her deep disagreement with the ruling.
At a White House press conference following the announcement, Mr. Trump hailed the decision as a legal triumph.
“A monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law,” he declared.
Legal Context: Nationwide Injunctions and Birthright Citizenship
The ruling originated from a trio of emergency appeals involving the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship—a right protected under the 14th Amendment for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status. The Department of Justice had sought to reduce the impact of three federal injunctions that blocked the implementation of this policy nationwide while lawsuits filed by 22 states, immigration advocacy groups, and several individuals proceeded through the courts.
Rather than immediately resolve the administration’s emergency appeals, the Supreme Court took up the broader issue of whether federal judges can issue universal injunctions—judicial orders that apply across the entire nation, even to individuals not directly involved in a case.
Such orders have been a source of frustration for both Democratic and Republican administrations seeking to enact policies amid Congressional deadlock. The Congressional Research Service noted that 86 nationwide injunctions were issued during Trump’s first term, with 28 more under President Joe Biden. Trump’s second term has seen at least 17 such orders in its early months, though administration officials contend the actual figure exceeds 40.
Several justices had previously indicated a willingness to address the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions. Critics—including the Trump administration—have accused lower courts of judicial overreach, with some allies even calling for impeachment of judges who issue such broad rulings.
The Executive Order and Legal Challenges
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office, redefined birthright citizenship. It denied citizenship to children born in the U.S. to mothers unlawfully present or temporarily residing in the country, or to fathers who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children in these categories born after February 19.
Before the policy took effect, at least seven lawsuits were filed in federal district courts across Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Each court blocked implementation of the order. The Trump administration then unsuccessfully sought partial relief from appellate courts in California, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
In March, the Justice Department escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the injunctions were overly broad. The government requested that the Court limit the enforcement of the order to specific states and individuals involved in the cases. Solicitor General D. John Sauer sharply criticized the wide reach of such injunctions.
“Those injunctions thwart the executive branch’s crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,” Sauer wrote. “They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level.”
Plaintiffs opposed this request, asserting that narrowing the injunctions would expose thousands of children to statelessness. Eighteen states, along with the District of Columbia and the city of San Francisco, argued that the Trump administration’s position would allow for unconstitutional deprivation of citizenship.
They claimed the move directly violated longstanding Supreme Court precedent that affirms birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The Court’s Reasoning and Ongoing Implications
In her opinion, Justice Barrett invoked historical precedent to argue that the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions lacks legal foundation.
“Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them,” she wrote.
Justice Sotomayor, however, warned that the ruling undermines access to constitutional protections for those not named in lawsuits.
“Today, the threat is birthright citizenship,” she wrote. “Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
She maintained that the executive order’s “patent unlawfulness” justified the use of universal injunctions and lamented the Court’s refusal to engage with the constitutional merits of the order.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the scope of current injunctions, it does not prevent plaintiffs from seeking class certification to reestablish nationwide relief. Sotomayor encouraged those affected by the birthright citizenship policy to act swiftly.
“[T]he parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class-action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification,” she wrote. “For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise to act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review.”
Following the decision, immigrant advocacy group CASA petitioned a federal court to proceed with its challenge on behalf of a proposed class: all children born in the U.S. on or after February 19, 2025, deemed ineligible for citizenship under Executive Order 14,160, and their parents.
