Supreme Court Smack Down: "JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary"

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, addressed the contentious issue of "birthright citizenship" in Trump v. Casa, ruling that lower courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, deeming such actions an overreach of judicial power. It's important to note the ruling did not directly address the issue of birthright citizenship though. Regardless, this is a monumental ruling that strikes down the power of federal judges "to impose universal remedies absent any constitutional or statutory grounding," wrote Justice Barrett. And it strikes at the heart of the Democratic Party's lawfare strategy to hamstring if not stop President Trump's agenda.

“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 to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch,” said President Trump during a press conference at the White House.

The ruling upheld the Department of Justice's (DOJ) strategy, which focused on challenging the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions rather than the core issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Opponents of "birthright citizenship" argue it is misused by undocumented immigrants to secure citizenship for their children, who can later sponsor legal immigration for family members. They also assert that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to establish this practice and that few other nations have similar policies.

The DOJ’s approach was shaped by prior lower court rulings that issued nationwide injunctions to block executive orders on this issue during the Trump administration. Both Democrats and some Republicans have increasingly pursued litigation in favorable jurisdictions to halt policies they lack the legislative votes to overturn.

In an originalist opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the conservative majority held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable powers granted to federal courts by Congress." Barrett explained that the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted federal courts jurisdiction over equitable remedies, but only those consistent with the traditions of English courts of equity at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. She noted that no equivalent to universal injunctions existed in the High Court of Chancery in England or early U.S. courts during the founding era, concluding that such injunctions fall outside the judiciary’s historical authority.

Several concurring opinions accompanied the ruling, alongside a dissent from the Court’s three liberal justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a separate dissent, arguing that the decision permits the Executive to evade constitutional constraints unless directly challenged by a lawsuit, calling it a "grave threat to the rule of law." She dismissed the majority’s reliance on historical precedents as outdated comparisons to "impotent English tribunals."

Barrett sharply rebuked Jackson’s dissent, writing: “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.” Barrett further criticized Jackson’s position as an attempt to “expand judicial authority beyond its historical bounds,” accusing her of advocating for a judiciary that “wields unchecked power to impose universal remedies absent any constitutional or statutory grounding.”

The ruling restricts district courts to applying judgments only within their jurisdictions unless plaintiffs file class-action lawsuits demonstrating shared harm. This decision significantly limits the ability of advocacy groups to use "forum-shopping" to secure nationwide rulings from sympathetic judges, a tactic often described as "lawfare."

The case is Trump v. Casa, U.S. Supreme Court, 8:25-cv-00201. For context, here is a list of federal injunctions against former Presidents.

• Donald Trump (2017–2021, 2025): 81 nationwide injunctions
  (at least 40 nationwide injunctions by mid-May 2025)

• Joe Biden (2021–2025): 14 nationwide injunctions

• Barack Obama (2009–2017): 20 nationwide injunctions

• George W. Bush (2001–2009): 12 nationwide injunctions

• Bill Clinton (1993–2001): 12 nationwide injunctions

• Other Presidents (pre-1993): ~31 nationwide injunctions