Supreme Court Ends Abuse of Injunctions: No More Judicial Supremacy
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in the controversial “birthright citizenship” case that lower courts cannot simply issue nationwide injunctions, and that doing so is an abuse of their judicial power.
The decision in Trump v. Casa vindicated the Department of Justice (DOJ) strategy of arguing against the idea of nationwide injunctions, rather than addressing the underlying substantive issue in the case — namely, the dispute over whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship upon birth. Conservatives argue that “birthright citizenship” is abused by illegal migrants [illegal alien invaders] to make their children into U.S. citizens, who can later sponsor the legal immigration of the rest of their families. They also argue that no other nation has birthright citizenship, and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to create it.
Given a number of contrary rulings in lower courts, which slapped nationwide injunctions on President Donald Trump’s executive orders on the subject, the DOJ kept the focus of its challenge to the narrow issue of nationwide injunctions. Democrats, and to a lesser extent Republicans, have sued in friendly jurisdictions in recent years as a way of stopping administration policies that they do not have legislative votes to overturn.
In a originalist opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s conservative majority found: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”...
Related
Supreme Court Nukes Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order, by Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist, 27 June 2025:
... In her majority opinion, Barrett noted that the injunctions brought before the Court “reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.”
“These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions,'” she wrote, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”...
Barrett wrote. “The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity. The injunctions are also stayed to the extent that they prohibit executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance about the Executive’s plans to implement the Executive Order.”...
In addition to signing onto the majority decision, Thomas authored a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Thomas noted that the high court’s Friday ruling “puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”
“The Court also makes clear that the complete relief principle provides a ceiling on federal courts’ authority, which must be applied alongside other ‘principles of equity’ and our holding that universal injunctions are impermissible,” Thomas wrote. “Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be ‘dutybound’ to intervene.”...
Trump Is Right To Push Back Against Judicial Supremacy
By Appeasing Rogue Judges, Trump Legitimizes Leftists’ Judicial Coup
DC Radical Judges Chosen and Reappointed Through an Unconstitutional Process
Crushing the Bugs - Dealing with insurrectionist jurists and other left-wing conspirators, by Theophilus Chilton, The Neo-Ciceronian Times, 25 March 2025.
Supreme Court Hands Win to Parents in Dispute Over Pro-LGBT Books - The court allowed parents to opt their children out of lessons using LGBT-themed books. Epoch Times, 28 June 2025.
Why 'Tit for Tat' Lawfare Is Necessary
We Still Have An Imperial Judiciary, Yet Trump Continues To Exercise Extreme Restraint, by Margot Cleveland, The Federalist, 30 June 2025.
