The US supreme court has ruled that federal judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block presidential policies.
In a 6-3 decision on Friday, the court’s conservative majority said judges exceeded their authority by halting President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship — the long-standing right to citizenship for anyone born on US soil.
The case centred on injunctions granted in three separate lawsuits challenging Trump’s order, which temporarily blocked the policy from taking effect while the courts deliberated.
But in its ruling, the supreme court said such “universal injunctions” likely exceed the authority congress has given to federal courts.
The court ruled that only the people who sued the government can be protected from Trump’s order and not the whole country.
Amy Barrett, writing for the majority, said federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch.
Barrett said the court only resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority congress has given them.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barret said.
However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself, leaving room for the Trump administration to press forward with the controversial plan.
In a dissenting opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, US supreme court justice, condemned the ruling and the underlying policy.
She described Trump’s executive order as “patently unlawful” and said the court’s decision to limit judicial remedies — like universal injunctions — could embolden future executive overreach.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,” Sotomayor said.
“Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.”
The decision is expected to reshape how federal courts respond to sweeping executive actions in the future, particularly in politically sensitive areas like immigration, gun rights, and public health.
