{"id":1461,"date":"2025-06-27T15:35:17","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T15:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/2025\/06\/27\/us-supreme-court-limits-courts-ability-to-issue-nationwide-injunctions\/"},"modified":"2025-06-27T15:35:17","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T15:35:17","slug":"us-supreme-court-limits-courts-ability-to-issue-nationwide-injunctions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/2025\/06\/27\/us-supreme-court-limits-courts-ability-to-issue-nationwide-injunctions\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court limits courts\u2019 ability to issue nationwide injunctions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts likely overstepped their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, limiting the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power.<\/p>\n

Friday\u2019s decision<\/a> came in response to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts which sought to block President Donald Trump\u2019s ability to curtail the right to birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n

\u201cUniversal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,\u201d the court\u2019s majority said in its decision. \u201cThe Court grants the Government\u2019s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the majority added that its decision applies \u201conly to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary\u201d. The injunctions could still apply, the court suggested, to the plaintiffs in the cases at hand.<\/p>\n

The ruling split the court once again along party lines, with its six conservative judges forming the majority and its three liberal judges issuing a dissent. Amy Coney Barrett, the court\u2019s newest judge and a Trump appointee, penned the majority\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision was a major victory for the Trump administration, which has denounced \u201cjudicial overreach\u201d as an unconstitutional obstacle to its policies. It will likely have wide-ranging ramifications for other cases where Trump\u2019s agenda has been blocked by lower-court injunctions.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,\u201d Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote<\/a> on the social media platform X.<\/p>\n

Trump himself celebrated<\/a> the decision on his platform Truth Social: \u201cGIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s ruling, however, did not allow Trump\u2019s executive order on birthright citizenship to come into immediate effect.<\/p>\n

It provided a 30-day period before Trump\u2019s order could be applied and ordered the lower courts to bring their injunctions in line with the new decision. Class action appeals are likely to be filed within that window.<\/p>\n

How did this case arrive at the Supreme Court?<\/h2>\n

Lower courts had come out strongly against Trump\u2019s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, a right established under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in the wake of the US Civil War.<\/p>\n

The amendment declared that \u201call persons born\u201d in the US and \u201csubject to the jurisdiction thereof\u201d would be citizens.<\/p>\n

The courts have repeatedly interpreted that text as granting citizenship to nearly all people born in the US, regardless of their parents\u2019 nationalities. There were limited exceptions, including for the children of diplomats.<\/p>\n

But in his 2024 re-election bid, Trump campaigned on a platform<\/a> that would see the Fourteenth Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants.<\/p>\n

The new policy, his platform said, \u201cwill make clear that going forward, the children of illegal aliens will not be granted automatic citizenship\u201d.<\/p>\n

On the first day of his second term, January 20, he followed through on that campaign promise, signing an executive order<\/a> called, \u201cProtecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship\u201d.<\/p>\n

But immigration advocates said that Trump\u2019s policy violated the Constitution and could render some children stateless. Lower courts sided with them, issuing nationwide injunctions that barred the executive order from taking effect.<\/p>\n

What did the Supreme Court majority say?<\/h2>\n

In Friday\u2019s decision, the Supreme Court sidestepped making any decisions about the constitutionality of Trump\u2019s proposed interpretation of birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n

Instead, it focused specifically on the federal court injunctions that would stymie the president\u2019s executive orders.<\/p>\n

The decision came on the last day of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2024-2025 term, when big decisions are often unveiled.<\/p>\n

Writing for the majority, Justice Coney Barrett advanced an argument with threads of originalism, saying that the judicial system had strayed from its original mandate with such wide-reaching injunctions.<\/p>\n

\u201cNothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n

The majority asserted that injunctions historically had a limited scope, pertaining to the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.<\/p>\n

\u201cTraditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only
against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,\u201d Coney Barrett wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts likely overstepped their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, limiting the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power. Friday\u2019s decision came in response to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts which sought to block President Donald Trump\u2019s ability … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1462,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-travel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1461","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1461"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1461\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pronews.in\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}