US Supreme Court Ends Judicial Tyranny: No More ‘Universal Injunctions’

by Zachary Mettler | June 27, 2025 | Government Updates

The U.S Supreme Court has limited the authority of federal district judges to issue universal injunctions, paving the way for President Trump to begin implementing many policies which have been stymied in court.

The case, Trump v. CASA, stems from three cases, which the Supreme Court consolidated into one, involving “universal injunctions” granted by three federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington.

The judges had each blocked President Trump’s executive order ending “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegal aliens from taking effect nationwide.

In a 6-3 decision on Friday, the court said federal district judges can’t enjoin (stop) the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy against all people and parties worldwide (i.e. universally).

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the court’s majority opinion, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Barrett explained. “The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.”

Justice Barrett clarified that the court was not deciding the constitutionality of the president’s executive order.

“The applications do not raise – and thus we do not address – the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” the justice wrote. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”

“Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” Justice Barrett asserted, adding,

Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they 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.

The ruling represents a massive victory for the Trump administration, which has seen many of its policies and executive orders immediately put on ice by federal judges across the nation. Indeed, Justice Barrett noted that since President Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, district courts issued around 25 universal injunctions against the administration.

As the Daily Citizen has previously reported, since January 20, 2025, judges have issued orders:

  • Blocking the Pentagon from excluding “transgender” troops from the U.S. military.
  • Ordering the Trump administration to return hundreds of members of Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, to American soil.
  • Prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration from removing webpages promoting “gender ideology” and stopping the agencies from scrubbing the term “pregnant people” from their websites.
  • Blocking President Trump’s order defunding medical institutions that provide harmful and damaging transgender drugs and surgeries to children and teens.
  • Blocking DOGE’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
  • Stopping all Social Security employees from “working on the DOGE agenda” at the direction of the president of the United States.
  • Mandating the U.S. Department of Justice house men in women’s prisons and provide them with feminizing hormones.

Friday’s decision goes a long way towards restoring the president’s ability to implement many of his policies and executive orders.

In a press conference shortly after the ruling, President Trump said,

The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions.

You can watch a brief portion of the president’s remarks below:

In a statement, Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded the court’s decision.

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” she said, adding that the ruling “would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers” at the Justice Department and Solicitor General John Sauer.

“This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend [the president’s] policies and his authority to implement them.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court’s decision, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson – in dire and dramatic fashion – called the court’s decision “an existential threat to the rule of law” causing “disaster [to] loom” and putting our legal system in “grave jeopardy,” which she predicted may cause “our beloved constitutional Republic” to “be no more” and “hasten[s] … our collective demise.”

Such overheated rhetoric didn’t sit well with Justice Barrett, who replied that Justice Jackson’s dissent “offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”

She expounded,

We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.
We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

To be clear, Friday’s decision does not restrict the authority of federal district judges to resolve any “cases or controversies” before them. Rather, it stops federal district judges from directing the government’s actions regarding those who are not present before the court and effectively neutering the executive branch.

The ultimate question decided by the court on Friday is this: Are the American people governed by our lawfully elected representatives, including the president of the United States? Or are we ruled by roughly 700 unelected, unaccountable federal district judges?

Thankfully, the court said the former, restoring the American people’s right to self-government.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78,

The judiciary … may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The case is Trump v. CASA.

Related articles and resources:

House Passes Bill Limiting Federal Judges’ Authority to Block Presidential Policies

Judicial Tyranny: Solutions to the Problem of Rogue Federal Judges

Judicial Tyranny: Do Federal Judges Have Authority Over the Executive Branch?

Photo from Getty Images.