Supreme Court Stops District Courts From Blocking Trump Nationwide

In a significant procedural victory for conservatives, the Supreme Court on June 27, 2025 ruled 6–3 that lower federal courts may not issue sweeping nationwide injunctions against executive actions only tailored relief for specific plaintiffs is allowed.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, made it clear that district courts exceed their authority by granting universal injunctions that go beyond resolving actual cases and controversies explicitly authorized by Congress under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Concurring, Justice Thomas emphasized the end of “increasingly common” broad injunctions, noting the judiciary’s historical limits.

Here’s why this matters:

• The decision stems from Trump’s Executive Order 14160, issued January 20, 2025, which seeks to rescind birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporarily present parents a policy that would have applied to babies born after February 19, 2025 if enforced.

• Lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington had blocked the order with nationwide injunctions. Now those injunctions are limited to named plaintiffs only, unless a class-action suit is certified.

• According to the Congressional Research Service, lower courts granted 86 nationwide injunctions during Trump’s first term and 28 under Biden highlighting the widespread use of the tool by activist judges.

Liberals didn’t hold back. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Jackson and Kagan, warned the ruling threatens constitutional protections for children not party to lawsuits. Jackson wrote of an “existential threat to the rule of law”. Barrett shot back, accusing Jackson of calling for an imperial judiciary while condemning executive overreach a contradiction at odds with centuries of precedent.

Trump wasted no time celebrating. He hailed the decision as “amazing”, insisting a long list of potential agenda items including ending sanctuary city funding, halting refugee resettlement, and banning taxpayer‑funded transgender surgeries can now proceed. Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed the tone, confident the Court will ultimately rule in Trump’s favor on the merits.

Though the Court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, it shifted who holds judicial power. The Supreme Court now retains exclusive responsibility for any nation‑wide relief a change that could slow such decisions and force challengers into class‑action suits, which are notoriously hard to win.

This ruling marks a turning point for executive authority. With nationwide injunctions off the table, district courts are constrained. For conservatives and supporters of Trump’s agenda, this is a welcome rebalancing. Critics, however, see it as procedural maneuvering that may strip millions of basic constitutional protections depending on where they live and whether they can sue.

The bottom line: judicial overreach has been checked, and executive policy gains new momentum. Courts will no longer act as de facto national vetoes until the Supreme Court allows it.

Consider sharing or subscribing to our newsletter if you’d like more coverage like this.