SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide
In a sweeping ruling, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to block executive actions throughout the country through nationwide injunctions, greatly affecting how parties seek judicial relief going forward.
The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, deals a significant blow to legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s extreme executive orders and other actions, many of which have been blocked or temporarily put on hold through nationwide injunctions.
The ruling “is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in a dissent.
Not long after the ruling, Trump claimed that his administration was now free to move ahead in amassing power on a range of fronts.
Nationwide, or universal, injunctions prevent the government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy across the entire U.S. — not just against the specific parties involved in the lawsuit, and not just in the districts where they’re issued.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court wrote that nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
“The bottom line? The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” Barrett wrote.
Friday’s decision was over Trump’s executive order aiming to deny citizenship to children who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. His order directly challenged the 14th Amendment, which states that everyone born on U.S. territory is a citizen, regardless of their descent.
The court’s ruling does not address the underlying constitutionality and merits of Trump’s order. It instead stayed nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
However, the court specified that Trump’s order could take effect in 30 days.
The lower court orders prevented federal agencies from carrying out Trump’s birthright citizenship order anywhere in the country. The Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged the orders by asking the Supreme Court in an emergency application whether judges can grant relief that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.
The court said the orders now only apply to the plaintiffs who sued.
“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson. “Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”
Sotomayor added that the ruling “disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties.”
Sotomayor notably did not include the traditional “respectfully” to conclude her dissent.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Jackson wrote that the court’s decision poses “an existential threat to the rule of law” by allowing the executive branch to “violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued.”
“It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior,” Jackson added.
During a press conference Friday, Trump said the Supreme Court “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 function of the executive branch.”
In reacting to the ruling, Trump repeated his attacks on federal judges, calling them “radical” and their rulings “a grave threat to democracy.”
The president jumped on the ruling as giving him complete freedom to plow ahead with many of the policies that have made up his unprecedented power grab and that had been blocked by the courts.
He falsely said that the Supreme Court has allowed his administration to proceed with ending birthright citizenship. He also named ceasing funding for sanctuary cities, suspending refugee resettlement and cutting funding for transgender healthcare as areas where his administration can move ahead unfettered.
“Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” Trump said. “This is a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory.”
The lower court rulings, while now limited, remain in effect, and additional plaintiffs will still be allowed to sue the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship order and other actions.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Supreme Court will likely decide the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order during its next session, which begins in October.
Legal experts noted that the ruling will have a cascading effect on other legal challenges to Trump’s policies that have involved universal injunctions, such as his efforts to mass fire federal workers, cut diversity equity and inclusion programs and change federal research grants standards.
Since January, federal judges have issued at least 25 universal injunctions in challenges to Trump policies, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It’s unclear how widespread relief from a potentially unconstitutional act by the government will now be sought in light of the court’s decision. The ruling may lead to an increase in court cases throughout the country as people seek the same relief in each circuit court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that plaintiffs could pursue relief under class-action lawsuits or could ask courts to set aside new agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court left open the possibility of nationwide relief in lawsuits brought by state governments.
Just hours after the court’s decision, several civil rights organizations filed amended complaints asking courts to certify a nationwide class of babies and expecting parents who are subject to Trump’s order.
In a rare move, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on the DOJ’s application in May. Normally, emergency applications are resolved through unsigned orders with limited briefing and no oral argument.
During arguments, Solicitor General John Sauer previewed how the Department of Justice (DOJ) will fight potential class action lawsuits against Trump’s order. He said it will likely challenge the commonality and typicality of class members, two crucial elements that must be met for a lawsuit to proceed as a class action.
As an example, Sauer said the DOJ may allege that expecting mothers in the country temporarily may not be in the same class as expecting mothers who are in the country illegally.
In a statement, the Center For American Progress (CAP) said the ruling “rubber-stamps President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine our nation’s rule of law.
“It upends the very function of the Constitution and cedes unmeasured power to a president who chooses to act unconstitutionally,” CAP said.
Nationwide injunctions have grown more common over recent decades and have been sought by both liberal and conservatives to halt the policies of presidents of both parties.
Legal experts across the ideological spectrum have expressed concerns about the use of nationwide injunctions, saying they promote forum shopping and politicization of the judiciary.
Other experts say they are necessary in rare cases to protect civil liberties throughout the country and avoid a patchwork of conflicting judicial rulings.