🚨 By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority

[In It to Win It]

Mark Joseph Stern
‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

🚨By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority and rolls back the injunctions protecting birthright citizenship from Trump's attack. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses, stripping them of authority to issue universal injunctions that block illegal policies nationwide.

Today's Supreme Court decision does not opine on the constitutionality of Trump's assault on birthright citizenship. It is limited to the question of universal injunctions. But its ruling on that front is MASSIVE—a huge blow to plaintiffs and judges trying to block Trump's most lawless policies.

KBJ, in dissent, calls today's ruling "profoundly dangerous" and an "existential threat to the rule of law." She expresses her "deep disillusionment" with the court and suggests that the conservative supermajority continues to crown Trump a king above law.



I want to reiterate that countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump's second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard.

From Sotomayor's dissent, which she's now reading from the bench:

"The President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent."




I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely.

🚨By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court rules that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' authority and rolls back the injunctions protecting birthright citizenship from Trump's attack. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T14:02:21.246Z

Justice Sotomayor dissenting on birthright citizenship case: "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T14:04:53.860Z

"The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any
other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only
if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival.
Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort."

— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T14:09:23.029Z

"With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a “solemn mockery” of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent."

— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T14:09:41.285Z

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Lord. The bank robbers are managing the banks. /nt

[Mr.Bee]

55. Before Your Eyes Folks,

the beginnings of a Not-See Nation!

[newdeal2]

2. Except for when it was the Biden presidency

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Yep. Biden's SAVE student loan repayment plan was blocked for the entire nation due to an injunction...

...from just the very rightwing Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. Yep. They picked the absolute worst case to grant trump these powers.

[JT45242]

3. So the constitution and its protection are valid in only some appellate jurisdiction

Birthright citizenship valid only where the appeals court says yep. Only a clown would say that citizenship by birth right is invalid.

Seriously...so every illegal executive order will have to be challenged separately to try to get an injunction until SCOTUS takes the case.

If this doesn't tell you that you might need to move out of certain parts of the country, I don't know what will.

[BattleRow]

37. We have merely a " concept" of a Constitution now.

[Sympthsical]

4. To be clear, they're not ruling on Birthright Citizenship

Which is not in front of them. They're ruling on whether or not single judges or district courts can stay executive branch policy for the entire nation.

The Court is saying that power is far beyond the judiciary's role.

So they're not saying Trump's arguments/policy are constitutional - they haven't ruled on that. They're addressing how much power lower courts have on national policy when cases are still being resolved.

[Efilroft Sul]

8. I'll bet this decision doesn't apply to any future ruling made by Judge Michael Kacsmaryk.

Because you can bet special accommodations will be made for that jerk.

[W_HAMILTON]

15. That was my first thought -- he's the fucker from Texas, right?

Yet another bullshit opinion from the Republican-hijacked Cafeteria Court, picking and choosing when to apply the law and precedent so that whatever their decision, it most often always ends up favoring the rightwing position.

[Efilroft Sul]

30. Yes, that's the guy. The one who thinks he can dictate women's healthcare nationwide.

[Sympthsical]

18. It'll be interesting

Because you think about courts like the 5th Circuit. This ruling will apply to them, too.

So the question is, will this reining in of lower courts be applied equally.

I'm of two minds on this. There is some attractive reasoning behind clamping down a bit on judge shopping. Don't like a policy? Go find a single sympathetic judge to apply nationwide injunction. That is a ridiculous amount of power to give to a lower court.

However, when you have cases like this which may affect tens of thousands of people, does the Court really want everyone filing their own separate lawsuits in separate courts all over the country in order to obtain relief from a potentially unconstitutional policy? Sure, I suppose you could go class action (and I believe Alito mentions this in a concurrence, that this could get real messy, real fast).

So it seems like the Court had half a thought here. They're tired of the judge shopping in search of universal injunctions that exceed judicial power, but it feels like they didn't really flesh out alternative paths satisfactorily.

[Efilroft Sul]

33. Thank you for the well-reasoned reply. I greatly appreciate the time you took to look at all the angles.

[lostincalifornia]

14. Perhaps not, but with the snails pace of the courts, and I suspect while waiting for a birthright citizenship

case to be ruled on through an appeals process until this supreme court finally decides to rule on it, people's birthright citizenship could be taken away and even deported until this supreme court decides to finally rule on it, even though the Constitution makes it very clear, this supreme court puts the issue in limbo I think.

[Sympthsical]

20. And that's what's pissed the liberal justices off

Very much so.

[lostincalifornia]

32. Not only the "liberal justices" I would venture to say.

[BattleRow]

38. Deny and/or delay...

Or is it delay..and /or deny?

[littlemissmartypants]

5. A Win for the fascists.

Massive win for Trump at the Supreme Court as the conservative majority curbs nationwide injunctions that blocked his birthright citizenship plan:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-curbs-injunctions-blocked-trumps-birthright-citizenship-rcna199742

Massive win for Trump at the Supreme Court as the conservative majority curbs nationwide injunctions that blocked his birthright citizenship plan:
www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...

— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley.bsky.social) 2025-06-27T14:09:23.096Z

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. As others have noted, this is NOT a ruling on birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS says lower courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, but, as they have ruled in separate cases, may issue injunctions affecting only their districts/jurisdictions.

They have not ruled on whether Trump can reject birthright citizenship, as that was not the question in this case. The question of the constitutionality of ignoring/rejecting/overturning birthright citizenship has yet to come before the court.

What this ruling does is set the stage for chaos, as ICE continues to terrorize, detain and deport people as they choose, whether they are citizens or not. ICE can continue to act with impunity in districts where lower courts have not issued injunctions.

Let’s hope the lower courts act swiftly to reign in ICE, and that appeals specific to birthright citizenship make their way to SCOTUS by next session (would be nice to have the Roberts court weigh in before the midterms, just so voters know if their passports are worth the paper they’re printed on).

[edhopper]

16. So Trump is free to ignore the Constitution

for up to a year more. And then we can't know if the SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. No, that's not what the ruling says

It means ICE is currently restricted in its actions on,y in the district of the original injunction, not nationwide.

Further injunctions by other federal courts would further restrict ICE’s actions, at least against citizens.

[edhopper]

36. If there are further restrictions

if the Court eventually rules.
It means a Constitutional Right is not universally applied. And it means people born here Will be deported.
It means SCOTUS does not think this Right is protected.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. You are, at least technically, mistaken

Today’s ruling is indeed a recipe for chaos, but SCOTUS took no position on birthright citizenship, as that was not the question before it, it was a question about the power of lower courts to impose nationwide injunctions.

So, until birthright citizenship comes before the court, we are stuck with seeking a piecemeal, patchwork solution, district by district, to provide relief and protection to the rights of citizens.

[edhopper]

42. It is a de facto ruling

that until, or unless the SCOTUS eventually rules on BC is no longer a Right in this country.
They have ruled e Constitution can be denied regionally.

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. We shall see.

ICE abuses aside, I’m not aware of anyone who has had their citizenship revoked in court.

[edhopper]

45. A man born to an American soldier

on a base in Germany was just deported. It has already happened.

[Sympthsical]

21. And the Court's given people 30 days to do exactly that

Some lawyers about to make a bunch of money.

[edhopper]

43. And places with Trumper Judges

can overrule the Constitution.

[SSJVegeta]

7. Dhshsjaiisirjebfjdsjsjwjwiiwiwbrbfjdjdjswjwkjaajisjdjdjdjssjsjsjjwkwjwjwjwieiejwneebdbdndjxkxiidieieiejebdndnxbxbzbsbabj

...i hope that was clear. If not maybe this will help:

[Hugin]

9. Well, there goes the last levee...

The courts didn’t hold.

[Silent Type]

10. On positive side, we aren't bound by 5th Circuit, arguably most right-wing federal appellate court in the country.

[SSJVegeta]

12. This is a really good point.

Meaning they cant overrule state or federal laws, right?

[tinrobot]

39. True, it does also neuter Kazmeryck

That Texas judge who tried to single-handedly overturn the Affordable Care Act, among other things.

[In It to Win It]

60. and Reed O'Connor, a different Texas right-wing nut judge, who declared the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional

[dalton99a]

13. The Trump Supreme Whorehouse doesn't disappoint.

[berniesandersmittens]

17. Big, centralized government is their end goal

Massive power grab that gives the Executive branch and the Supreme Court themselves the crowns of governance.

[TBF]

19. To use my 18-year-old's vernacular, this country is cooked. nt

[Johnny2X2X]

22. This opens the door to all sorts of horrors

Just unreal, a clear statement in the US Constitution has been disregarded and now the President has absolute authority to to deport any Americans he sees fit to deport, including you and I.

[Arazi]

23. Any vestige of impartiality is gone

If the Supreme Court thinks universal injunctions are unconstitutional, to wait until *now* to say that, in this of all cases, with this of all presidents, is a devastating indictment of both its impartiality and its prudence.

[bluestarone]

24. THIS court is determined to ALWAYS stretch their words to somehow always

Give this BASTARD a win!

[dalton99a]

25. His Whorehouse is really the best

[In It to Win It]

26. Tell me about it! They always find just enough wiggle room to let him do whatever the fuck he wants

[underpants]

27. JMFC!

[Lovie777]

28. It hits the pocket book for sure............

how many people can afford to take it to court?

[markodochartaigh]

29. "How many people can afford to take it to the supreme court?"

All of the ones whom the supreme court cares about.

[AllaN01Bear]

34. always about him always.

[Dr. Shepper]

41. OK then lift the fucking injunction

Off the SAVE program so those of us in public service can get out of loan forgiveness purgatory.

[orangecrush]

46. The Constitution is dead.

[DENVERPOPS]

51. AND

coming soon to a nation near you,
The doing away of the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.....neither of which are needed in a Tyrannical Dictatorship....

Slowly creeping away, from all directions, as they have been doing for the past 45+ years, starting with HWBush.....(Reagan)

While the nation slept.............

[MaineBlueBear]

47. How was it justified?

What was the majority opinion that allowed this travesty?

[BumRushDaShow]

52. The biggest users of "nationwide injunctions" were the RW loon courts in the 5th Circuit

Even the more balanced or liberal courts (1st, 4th, 9th) were reticent to do such, and most recently, have only had their decisions apply to those plaintiffs (including states) that filed in their districts/Circuits.

But the Texas judges were imposing "nationwide injunctions" against any "liberal/progressive" law/policy that was enacted. It was to the point where loons were literally judge-shopping in TX to file there to get such a broad injunction.

Now THAT has been cut off.

[MaineBlueBear]

58. Ain't no standard like a double

Supreme Court is in the tank for Trump. They'll ignore this new precedence.

[Escaped Floridian]

48. I'd respond to this news,

but, sadly, I never learned the Cyrillic Alphabet.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

49. Shockingly, Trump gets it wrong.

[North Coast Lawyer]

50. We Better Take Advantage Too

Many Democratic policies have been blocked by nationwide injunctions. If it was legislation that was blocked its time to reopen those cases right now. Blocked executive orders need to be reissued the first day our next Democratic President is sworn in January 2029.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

54. That is if

We ever get fair and free elections or even just elections ever again.

[North Coast Lawyer]

56. It'll Happen

Authoritarians like Trump always overplay their hands and are ultimately deposed one way or another. Trump's support is tanking while opposition is surging.

[splano]

53. This is going to be a nightmare

There's a lot to take away from this ruling. And I'm going to have to defer to legal scholars as to the scope of it.

I assume the ruling is for universal injunctive relief only. But what if a district court rules that the executive order is unconstitutional? Does this ruling mean that the executive order is only unconstitutional in that district's scope? If a circuit court affirms a district court's unconstitutional ruling, does this mean it's only applicable to those states within their jurisdiction?

Does this mean for every federal action that gets challenged, there has to be 94 district court cases and 50 corresponding state cases, simply to get a law or action ruled unconstitutional across the US?

There are going to be thousands of cases flooding the district courts now with this ruling. I hope they are braced for it.

[purple_haze]

57. This is bad

This is very very bad

[LetMyPeopleVote]

59. A couple of Class Action lawsuits have already been filed to get around this ruling

Class actions are a way around this ruling

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

That was quick

There are already TWO new class action lawsuits challenging Trump birthright citizenship order

Suits designed to adjust to today's Supreme Court ruling

Including one by ACLU, which says "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values & history"