On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision that sharply limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions—orders that block federal policies across the entire country.
This ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, drastically changes how legal challenges to federal actions will proceed in the future.
The decision marks a clear shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, potentially making it more difficult for courts to provide immediate, comprehensive relief when constitutional violations are alleged.
Case Background
The decision arose from legal battles over President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who entered illegally or on temporary visas.
Lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions, halting the order’s enforcement everywhere while lawsuits played out. The Supreme Court, however, found that such broad orders likely exceed the authority Congress has granted to federal courts.
The Decision’s Immediate Impact
The Supreme Court’s ruling stayed nationwide injunctions that had been issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, while specifying that Trump’s order could take effect in 30 days.
The Supreme Court did not address the underlying constitutional merits of the birthright citizenship order itself, focusing instead on the procedural question of judicial authority.
The Broader Implication’s on Presidential Power
This decision expands presidential authority by limiting the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions, which will drastically alter the ability for courts to check presidential power.
Legal experts view this as a watershed moment that could reshape how future presidential actions are challenged in federal court and a victory for advocates of executive power who have long argued that individual district judges should not be able to halt government policies nationwide.
President Trump hailed the decision as “a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the RULE OF LAW.”
The Dissent
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of abandoning its duty to protect the rule of law, writing “With the stroke of a pen, the president has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution.”
Unresolved Issues
The Supreme Court did not address whether Trump’s executive order itself is constitutional.
Agencies have 30 days to issue guidance on the policy, and further litigation is expected.
The decision also leaves open questions about how lower courts will handle class actions or similar broad challenges in the future.