President Donald Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to restrict lower courts from issuing universal injunctions, framing it as a major victory against what he called a ‘colossal abuse of power’ by the judiciary. The ruling, issued just over an hour after the decision was made public, allows lower courts to issue such injunctions only in specific, limited cases rather than on a widespread basis. Trump argued that this decision protects the executive branch’s ability to implement policies that reflect the will of the American people, which he claimed had been obstructed by a ‘radical left’ judicial system. The ruling, however, does not determine the constitutionality of Trump’s controversial birthright citizenship order, which remains a central issue in the ongoing legal battles.
During a press conference shortly after the decision, Trump praised the majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for its ‘brilliant’ legal reasoning. He specifically thanked Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts, for their support. The decision was seen as a major shift in the balance of power, with the court allowing the executive branch more leeway in enforcing its policies. However, the ruling is notable for not directly addressing the constitutional merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order, leaving the issue open for further legal scrutiny.
The case centers on universal injunctions, which are broad court orders that can block an executive action across the entire country. The Supreme Court’s decision allows lower courts to issue these injunctions only when they believe it is necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The ruling leaves open the question of how this decision will apply to the birthright citizenship order, which the administration argued was overly broad. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling could allow the executive to ‘violate the Constitution’ and posed an ‘existential threat to the rule of law.’ The majority opinion, however, maintained that the court was only deciding the question of remedy, not the constitutional validity of the executive order.