On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that limits the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court established that lower federal courts can no longer issue injunctions that apply to individuals or entities who are not directly involved in the lawsuit. This ruling is a significant shift in how courts handle cases involving federal policies, particularly those affecting broad swathes of the population.
Background: The Case that Sparked the Ruling
The case at the center of the decision involved a challenge to a controversial executive order issued by the former Trump administration concerning birthright citizenship. The policy, which sought to restrict birthright citizenship, was opposed by a coalition of states, civil rights organizations, and advocacy groups. In response, several lower courts issued nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy’s enforcement across the entire United States, even for individuals who were not parties to the lawsuits.
This broad application of judicial relief became a point of contention, with critics arguing that such injunctions overstep the judiciary’s role and undermine the authority of the executive branch. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether federal courts have the authority to issue relief that applies across the nation, rather than being limited to the parties involved in a particular case.
The Court’s Ruling: Judicial Restraint and the Balance of Powers
In delivering the majority opinion, Justice Thomas argued that nationwide injunctions disrupt the balance of power between the branches of government and represent an overreach of judicial authority. He emphasized that such injunctions were not authorized by Congress and undermined the executive branch’s ability to enforce its policies effectively. According to the Court, injunctions should be limited to the plaintiffs involved in the case and should not extend to non-parties who have not had the opportunity to argue the case in court.
The ruling reflects a growing trend toward judicial restraint, with the Court signaling that lower federal courts should not assume a role in halting federal policies on a national scale unless explicitly authorized by law. The Court’s decision is seen as a reinforcement of the principle that the executive branch has the authority to govern and enforce laws, subject to constitutional and statutory limits.
Implications for Future Executive Actions and Legal Challenges
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for how future executive orders and federal policies are challenged in court. Under the new standard, litigants will no longer be able to seek nationwide relief from a federal judge unless they can demonstrate that the relief is specifically required by law. This could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge federal actions with nationwide implications, particularly those affecting large numbers of people.
Legal experts anticipate that this decision will lead to a more fragmented approach to legal challenges against executive actions. Plaintiffs will likely need to focus their cases on specific individuals or groups who are directly affected by the policy in question, rather than seeking blanket injunctions that halt enforcement nationwide.
Potential for Legislative Action
Some legal scholars argue that Congress may need to step in to clarify the limits of judicial authority in such cases. In light of the ruling, Congress could consider enacting laws that specifically grant federal courts the power to issue nationwide injunctions in certain types of cases, particularly those involving constitutional rights or significant public interest.
Overall, the decision marks a major shift in the judicial landscape, particularly regarding how courts handle cases with broad societal impacts. It could alter the way policies are challenged and enforced in the future, with significant consequences for the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches.
