SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide

The Supreme Court has curtailed the authority of federal judges to block executive actions nationwide through the use of national injunctions.

The court’s decision, which was reached with a 6-3 vote and included all six justices appointed by the GOP in the majority, represents a considerable setback for individuals challenging President Donald Trump’s executive orders and other initiatives, many of which have faced obstruction or temporary suspension due to nationwide injunctions.

Universal or nationwide injunctions prevent the government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy throughout the United States, rather than solely against the specific parties involved in the litigation or within the jurisdictions where they are issued.

In essence, federal district courts are no longer permitted to issue national injunctions that impact all individuals.

They are restricted to issuing injunctions that only affect the plaintiffs in their cases.

The ruling on Friday pertained to Trump’s executive order aimed at denying citizenship to children born on American soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. This decision directly challenged the 14th Amendment, which states that anyone born on US soil, irrespective of their parents’ status, is a citizen.

The court’s ruling does not assess the legality or merits of Trump’s order. Rather, it has put a stop to nationwide injunctions that were imposed by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

These rulings barred federal agencies from enforcing Trump’s decree on birthright citizenship across the nation. The Department of Justice (DOJ) contested these orders, presenting an emergency application to the Supreme Court to determine whether courts can grant relief to parties not involved in litigation before them.

In an unusual action, the Supreme Court conducted oral arguments regarding the DOJ’s application in May. Typically, emergency applications are resolved through unsigned orders with limited briefing and without oral arguments. The use of nationwide injunctions has become increasingly prevalent in recent decades, being sought by both liberal and conservative factions to impede the policies of presidents from both parties.

“Legal experts from various ideological backgrounds have raised alarms regarding the implementation of nationwide injunctions, arguing that they encourage forum shopping and the politicization of the judiciary. Conversely, some experts contend that such injunctions are essential in exceptional circumstances to safeguard civil liberties nationwide and to prevent a disjointed array of conflicting judicial decisions,” the outlet noted.

Republicans have consistently asserted that district courts are exceeding their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions against actions taken by the Executive Branch. They maintain that district courts should only possess the power to make rulings within their specific jurisdictions.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has advocated for restrictions to be placed on federal district judges to prevent them from issuing nationwide injunctions.

The chairman made an appearance on Newsmax TV’s “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” where he expressed his discontent regarding the actions of federal district judges that have hindered President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing its agenda.

He mentioned that the House has passed a bill aimed at curtailing the powers of federal district judges, yet the Senate has not acted on it.

“We passed legislation stating that when a federal district judge issues an injunction, it should not have nationwide applicability,” the representative remarked. “It should only affect the parties involved in that case within that jurisdiction, not the entire nation.”

The House approved the “No Rogue Judges Act” on April 9 with a vote of 219-213. The Senate has yet to address the proposed legislation. “This is about fundamental fairness,” Jordan emphasized.

In a separate matter, the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered its decision regarding President Trump’s initial executive order that sought to terminate birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants.

Trump has achieved a significant victory in the Birthright Citizenship Case, not concerning the substantive issues, but regarding the permissibility of a universal injunction. This holds considerable importance for all cases involving universal injunctions.

Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland clarified the implications of this ruling, stating, “The US Supreme Court permits Trump’s executive order to proceed.”