SCOTUS limits judgesâ power to issue nationwide injunctions
Image: SCOTUS
On Friday, the Supreme Court imposed new limits on the ability of lower courts to pause federal policies from taking effect nationwide, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines.
A narrower scope
The decision came in a case centered around President Trump's effort to eliminate birthright citizenship in the US, which has been frozen by three separate universal injunctions while legal challenges play out.
What it means: The Courtâs conservative majority ruled that federal district courts âlikely exceedâ their authority granted by Congress when issuing injunctions that block presidential policies nationwide, and can only make decisions that apply to the parties involved in each case.
- For the birthright citizenship lawsuit, that means Trumpâs order is only blocked for the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers, and immigration organizations that are suing.
- The decision doesnât address whether Trump's push to eliminate birthright citizenship is constitutional, with the high court expected to take up that issue as early as this fall.
Moving forward, the ruling will make it substantially easier for more policies from Trumpâand future presidential administrationsâto take effect, according to legal experts. Itâs also expected to affect several ongoing lawsuits that have produced nationwide injunctions blocking White House orders to:
- End government support for DEI initiatives
- Overhaul US federal elections
- Stop funding healthcare facilities that provide transgender treatments to patients under 19
- Dismantle certain federal agencies
It was a busy Friday for SCOTUS
Americaâs highest court also delivered several other major rulings on the final day of its 2024-25 session. The justices:
- Upheld a Texas law requiring porn site users to verify their age via photo ID.
- Affirmed an Obamacare provision requiring most insurers to provide free preventive care.
- Upheld the FCC's multibillion-dollar fund used to expand telephone and broadband access in rural areas.
- Voted to allow Maryland parents to remove their kids from lessons containing material that violates their religious beliefs.
Looking aheadâŚThe Supreme Courtâs next term begins in October, when itâs expected to take up cases related to the death penalty, the Fourth Amendment, and mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
đ Flash poll: In general, do you agree with SCOTUSâ decision to impose new limits on lower courtsâ ability to issue nationwide injunctions?
See a 360° view of what pundits are saying â
Sprinkles from the Left
- Some commentators argue that after eliminating universal injunctions, SCOTUS needs to own the consequences of their rulingâand be willing to act with speed and force when the President attempts to violate Americansâ rights, since they alone now have that power.
- Others contend that SCOTUSâ decision deals a grievous blow to separation of powers in the US government at a time when Trump is asserting unprecedented powers, making it far more difficult to restrain his unconstitutional actions.
- âJustices need to own the consequences of their injunction rulingâ âWaPo Editorial Board
- âA stunning and tragic Supreme Court decisionâ âErwin Chemerinsky, LA Times
- âSupreme Court ruling on injunctions is a disasterâ âNY Daily News Editorial Board
Sprinkles from the Right
- Some commentators argue that SCOTUSâ decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a positive development in many ways, given the dysfunctions that they inspire, with Democrats running to California and Republicans to Texas to convince a single federal judge.
- Others contend that SCOTUSâ ruling correctly reins in the imperial ambitions of federal district judges, and is a good first step towards giving Congress back its rightful legislative power to decide how legal disputes over executive power operate.
- âThe Supreme Court Kills âUniversalâ Injunctionsâ âWSJ Editorial Board
- âA Welcome Start on Nationwide Injunctionsâ âNational Review Editorial Board
- âThe Supreme Court was entirely right to slap down lower-court federal judges who keep trying to play kingâ âNY Post Editorial Board
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
  | June 27, 2025How Zohran Mamdani won over NYC
đ˝ Zohran Mamdani is New York Cityâs unlikely new Democratic candidate for mayor, after he officially declared victory in this weekâs primary election when his main opponent, former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceded the race.
Discussion
  | June 25, 2025President Trump is pushing NATO to spend more on defense
đ President Trump flew to The Hague, Netherlands, yesterday for the annual summit of leaders from the 32 countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Discussion
  | June 23, 2025The US strikes Iran
đŽđˇ Early Sunday morning local time, the US conducted a series of airstrikes against Iran in coordination with Israel, joining its escalating effort to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no đ or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.đ
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete