WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a major victory for constitutional separation of powers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on Friday that federal district court judges cannot issue sweeping nationwide injunctions unless justified by class-action status. The National Legal and Policy Center hailed the decision as a critical check on judicial overreach—and a reaffirmation of the executive branch’s authority.
Paul Kamenar, Lead Counsel, NLPC
Paul Kamenar, Constitutional Attorney and Lead Counsel to NLPC, praised the decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a “commonsense ruling that reinforces the limits of judicial power under Article III.”
In a written statement to One America News, Kamenar outlined the implications of the Court’s decision.
“What this means for now is that those challenging the Executive Order will have to bring court challenges in other states,” Kamenar wrote.
“Although the Court also noted that the parties can file class actions which can have a nationwide effect. The three liberal justices filed a strong dissent that the majority’s decision will have a patchwork quilt effect of different rulings across the country.”
The case originated from multiple federal courts—Maryland, Seattle, and Boston—issuing injunctions against President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which sought to restrict automatic citizenship for children born to non-citizens in the United States. However, the case before the Court did not address the constitutionality of the policy itself, but whether judges had the authority to block it nationwide.
“At the end of the day, this underlying issue of whether the Executive Order is constitutional will be decided by the Supreme Court,” Kamenar wrote.
“And the sooner the better to resolve the matter instead of having local judges making individual rulings.”
In her majority opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that the federal judiciary has historically avoided universal injunctions and that lower courts have no authority to impose them beyond the parties involved.
“The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” Barrett noted.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, calling the executive order “patently unlawful” and arguing that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in such cases.
Kamenar, however, emphasized that the ruling doesn’t just benefit one political side—it applies to both.
“This decision favors both political parties since a conservative judge can no longer issue a nationwide injunction against a regulation or Executive Order from a Democrat,” he wrote.
“As a Texas judge did last year in striking down the FDA’s approval of mifepristone birth control pills nationwide.”
Importantly, the ruling leaves the door open for broader injunctions in future cases—but only under specific circumstances.
“The majority did leave open the possibility that if the states win an injunction, it may be possible that since their citizens travel from state to state, a broader injunction might be appropriate,” Kamenar wrote.
Kamenar views the Court’s decision as a pivotal moment in restoring constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and executive branch.
“Federal courts should not be in the business of writing national policy from the bench,” Kamenar said. “This ruling is a step toward restoring legal sanity and encouraging the Supreme Court to resolve constitutional disputes directly—rather than allowing a patchwork of conflicting rulings to destabilize national policy.”
President Trump responded on Truth Social, calling it a “GIANT WIN” and saying the ruling dealt an indirect blow to what he calls the “birthright citizenship hoax.”
The ruling came on the final day of the Supreme Court’s term before its summer recess.
