Trump speaks after Supreme Court limits judges’ power to halt his birthright citizenship order

preCharge News BUSINESS — In a major legal victory for former President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on Friday that federal district court judges cannot issue universal injunctions—broad orders that block federal policies nationwide—unless directly necessary for the plaintiffs in a case.

The decision significantly reduces the judiciary’s ability to prevent presidential executive actions from taking effect while under legal challenge. It also bolsters Trump’s long-standing argument that his administration’s agenda was unfairly impeded by judicial activism.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!” Trump celebrated on social media following the decision.

Case Focus: Blocking Trump’s Order to End Birthright Citizenship

Nationwide Injunctions Overturned

The case stemmed from three lawsuits filed in response to Trump’s controversial executive order to end birthright citizenship—a move critics say would overturn a constitutional guarantee rooted in the 14th Amendment.

Federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions, preventing the order from taking effect during litigation. But the Supreme Court majority ruled those broad injunctions exceeded judicial authority, stating:

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

The ruling allows Trump’s executive order to advance while litigation continues—but only in ways that impact the plaintiffs who originally sued.

Importantly, the Court did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional, leaving that question unresolved for now.

Barrett Writes for the Majority: “Judiciary Not Oversight for Executive”

Justices Rein in Lower Courts

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that federal courts should not act as overseers of presidential decisions unless explicitly authorized by Congress.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett wrote.

The opinion underscores a core conservative principle: that courts must remain limited to resolving specific legal disputes rather than issuing sweeping policy blocks that affect non-parties.

Dissenting Justices Warn of Constitutional Crisis

Sotomayor and Jackson Deliver Scathing Rebukes

In a passionate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the majority of “shamefully” enabling the Trump administration’s legal manipulation and warned that fundamental rights were now at risk.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

She cautioned that today’s decision paves the way for future abuses—ranging from firearms seizures to religious suppression—if courts are stripped of the power to issue universal injunctions.

“As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, warned the ruling amounts to giving the government a green light to violate the Constitution, so long as not everyone has sued yet.

“The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

What the Ruling Means Going Forward

Trump’s Executive Power Strengthened

The ruling immediately lifts several key blocks on Trump’s immigration and citizenship initiatives, restoring momentum to his 2025 agenda. It also signals that future presidents may face fewer legal constraints when using executive orders to drive policy.

However, the constitutional status of birthright citizenship—guaranteed to all persons born in the United States—remains unresolved and is likely to be contested in further court battles.