The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a decision hailed as a significant curb on judicial overreach.
The case stemmed from challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, though the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of that policy. Instead, it addressed the broader issue of nationwide injunctions, which allow a single judge to block federal policies across the entire country.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, argued that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” restricting their scope to only the parties directly involved in a case.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
The Court’s decision states, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” wrote Justice Barrett in the majority opinion. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.
The ruling marks a shift toward greater executive power, as nationwide injunctions have been a tool used by leftist judges to block conservative laws – including pro-life legislation.
According to a 2023 Harvard Law Review study, 64 of 96 nationwide injunctions from 2001 to 2023 were issued against Trump’s first term, with 92% coming from Democrat-appointed judges. The Trump administration argued that these injunctions, often imposed by “singular partisan judges,” stifle public debate and block the implementation of electoral mandates. The decision prevents lower courts from broadly halting policies, requiring injunctions to apply only to the specific plaintiffs or districts involved.
Critics of the ruling, including dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that curbing nationwide injunctions could allow potentially unlawful executive actions to persist during lengthy litigation. Supporters, however, see the ruling as a restoration of democratic balance, preventing individual judges from wielding outsized influence over national policy.
The decision has far-reaching implications beyond the birthright citizenship case, especially for pro-life laws.
Brad Mattes, President of Life Issues Institute, hailed the high court for significantly curtailing the authority of federal district courts by ruling that they may no longer issue universal nationwide injunctions.
For years, pro-life legislative victories have been undermined by activist courts issuing nationwide injunctions at the behest of abortion advocates. These rulings have allowed pro-abortion groups to “forum shop,” selecting sympathetic courts to block life-saving actions across the entire country.
Mattes told LifeNews, “Today’s ruling shows that the US Supreme Court stands with Americans who voice their opinions through legislation passed by elected officials. This will help curtail blatant legislating from the bench, and we celebrate that the Court recognized the problem.”
