Posted on 06/27/2025 8:21:59 AM PDT by Signalman
President Donald Trump and his administration are rejoicing on Friday as the Supreme Court issued a ruling limiting the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
Nationwide injunctions are sweeping orders issued by district courts to block executive actions across the country. The Supreme Court ruled that these orders exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The case stems from an emergency appeal by the current administration, which sought to narrow orders that have blocked President Trump’s executive orders preventing birthright citizenship from taking effect nationwide. Liberal news outlets claim the nationwide court orders are an important check on Trump and his efforts to enforce immigration law.
Last month, during oral arguments for the case, SCOTUS looked as if they would allow a block on citizenship restrictions to remain while also trying to come up with a solution to scale back nationwide court orders. A majority of justices were worried about the consequences if the administration were given permission, even on a temporary basis, to deny citizenship to babies born to parents in the U.S. illegally.
“Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump’s executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years,” NBC Washington reported.
In the first six months of Trump’s second term, 17 nationwide injunctions have been ordered. His first term had more than that. Proponents of the injunctions continue to argue that these are tools to help protect rights in all districts. Critics refer to them as judicial overreach that causes policy disruptions.
Recently, the House passed a bill that would curtail nationwide injunctions, limiting them to only the parties directly involved. However, the Senate is not likely to approve the legislation. Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Cotton have proposed measures aimed at restoring the separation of powers by maintaining unequal judicial remedies.
This decision by the Supreme Court, according to legal experts, marks a significant redefinition of the federal judiciary’s reach. By curtailing nationwide injunctions, both executive and legislative power are strengthened. The ruling will ultimately reshape the legal landscape for future challenges to federal policy.
>> They have a new custom of ignoring SCOTUS rulings they don’t agree with
The day may come when it falls to We The People to enforce. By whatever means is required.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4325652/posts
The reality really sucks, yeah.
ZOT!
“ Calls for a shot of fireball whiskey with cinnamon.”
For me, it will be a shot of 1792 Bourbon.
Do you understand satire or sarcasm? Jeeze.
Yup.
One of the best SCOTUS decisions.
I’ll take it. I’d prefer a pyramid of their heads stacked up on the White House lawn but this’ll do.
Citing the USSC, the Executive can tell the lower courts to pound sand.
Amen
Where do we go to get our 5 months back?
Roberts has also cheered us up lately, but in the future don’t expect 100% alignment with MAGA on everything from Barrett or Roberts.
I thought the spelling was “dicktater”, as in tots.
This victory may be short lived. According to Jan Crawford, who was reporting for CBS Mornings today, the plaintiffs who hate Trump’s definition of birth right citizenship, may just seek a judge that will agree to turn their case to a class action lawsuit. So they need to find at least 40 harmed individuals. The Supreme Court may allow a temporary nationwide injunction for class action lawsuits while the case goes through lower courts.
The activist Dem judges will find a way around this, so perhaps it really isn't that much of a win, we'll see.
i guess i shouldn’t be too surprised: these unprecedented “national” rulings by district courts amount to each and every one of them acting as mini Supreme Court, and the ACTUAL Supreme Court wouldn’t be too favorable at having their own nationwide powers diminished ...
Well really they reaffirmed the concept of a jurisdiction and the limits of a ruling.
A district court in California does not have jurisdiction over anything in Wisconsin, Florida or Maine. Appeals courts may have an area of multiple states, but again, not the entire country. They should not be able to reach outside their jurisdictions. This ruling also should affirm the concept of this as well, again.
no kings
AMY! What took you SO LONG?
I mean — you GO, Girl, but... it’s been a hella long time since your confirmation, and you’ve kinda been missing from The Constitutional Team.
So, GREAT you’re leading the charge on this one.
Can we get this to be a CONSISTENT thing from you?
True, you’re no Scalia, but The Constitution stands in dire need of cogent allies on the Supreme Court Bench.
You make a habit of this, and you could be a contender.
it will be decided in october anyway
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.