Supreme Court: Ceding more power to Trump?
SCOTUS has given Trump a victory by ending nationwide injunctions, limiting judges' power to block presidential orders
The Supreme Court has granted President Trump "the victory of his dreams," said Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. On the last day of its term, the justices finally ruled on Trump's "brazen" executive order decreeing an end to birthright citizenship—the Constitution's guarantee of citizenship to anyone born "within the jurisdiction of the United States"—for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders. Ominously, the court punted on the substantive issue, pausing Trump's order only until July 27. But in a vote split along ideological lines, the court's six conservatives gave Trump something more valuable: an end to the so-called universal injunctions that have allowed district court judges to block, nationwide, unconstitutional presidential orders. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a dry "history lesson," claiming nationwide injunctions "likely exceed" the power Congress gave to courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which envisioned that rulings would apply only to named plaintiffs. The "real-world implications" of Barrett's dusty "textualism" will soon be upon us, said Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark. One of our last defenses against Trump's "fascist takeover" has been neutralized. The government, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, now has "an open invitation" to "bypass the Constitution."
"Good riddance," said Nicholas Bagley in The Atlantic. Universal injunctions were rarely issued until the late 20th century, when political activists realized they needed only one like-minded partisan judge to block a presidential initiative across the nation. Since then, injunctions have become routine, "thwarting Republican and Democratic initiatives alike." During the Biden administration, right-wing judges issued nationwide blocks aimed at student debt relief, immigration reform, and the abortion drug mifepristone. Ending this abuse will reduce the "dysfunction" of our politics and our legal system, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. And egregious executive orders can still be pre-emptively blocked nationwide, via lawsuits filed by states or by class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of all affected citizens.
There is "legitimate debate" over universal injunctions, said Ruth Marcus in The New Yorker. But given Trump's tyrannical instincts, the court picked "the worst possible moment" to abolish them. And don't think that class actions will rein in an administration "bent on abusing the law," because this same Supreme Court recently tightened the rules for certifying large classes. Unless lower courts "sort things out" in the next few weeks, we'll see "citizenship chaos," said Karen Tumulty in The Washington Post. One possible outcome is that children born to undocumented mothers in, say, New Jersey, one of 22 states suing to block Trump's order, will be citizens, while those across the border in Pennsylvania—whose Republican attorney general hasn't joined the suit—won't be.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
This ruling may prove "less catastrophic than it first appears," said Mila Sohoni in SCOTUSblog. Barrett's opinion recognizes that blanket bans may still be needed in some cases—including, probably, birthright citizenship. And "most importantly," Congress can reinstate nationwide injunctions anytime it wants. "The court got it right," said Samuel Bray in The New York Times. However "attractive" the notion of heroic judges single-handedly blocking Trump's lawless orders may be, neither the Founders, nor Congress, gave them that power. The best way for judges to defend democracy is to "lead by example in adhering to the rule of law."
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Why Britain is struggling to stop the ransomware cyberattacksThe Explainer New business models have greatly lowered barriers to entry for criminal hackers
-
Greene’s rebellion: a Maga hardliner turns against TrumpIn the Spotlight The Georgia congresswoman’s independent streak has ‘not gone unnoticed’ by the president
-
Crossword: October 26, 2025The Week's daily crossword puzzle
-
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s rebellion: Maga hardliner turns on TrumpIn the Spotlight The Georgia congresswoman’s independent streak has ‘not gone unnoticed’ by the president
-
‘Congratulations on your house, but maybe try a greyhound instead’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Trump wants to exert control over federal architectureThe Explainer Beyond his ballroom, Trump has several other architectural plans in mind
-
Trump’s huge ballroom to replace razed East WingSpeed Read The White House’s east wing is being torn down amid ballroom construction
-
Trump expands boat strikes to Pacific, killing 5 moreSpeed Read The US military destroyed two more alleged drug smuggling boats in international waters
-
Whistles emerge as Chicago’s tool to fight ICEIN THE SPOTLIGHT As federal agents continue raiding the city, communities have turned to noisemakers to create a warning system
-
Will California’s Proposition 50 kill gerrymandering reform?Talking Points Or is opposing Trump the greater priority for voters?
-
‘The trickle of shutdowns could soon become a flood’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day