(By Kainat Rajput) Washington, D.C. — June 27, 2025
In a landmark 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide (universal) injunctions, stating that such sweeping judicial blocks can only apply to the plaintiffs involved in the case, not to the entire country.
The case was tied to legal challenges against Executive Order 14160, issued earlier this year, which sought to restrict or reinterpret birthright citizenship—the long-standing legal principle granting U.S. citizenship to nearly all individuals born on American soil, under the 14th Amendment.
Key Points from the Ruling:
⦁ The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself.
⦁ It focused only on limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts.
⦁ Existing injunctions still protect the original plaintiffs, but cannot be enforced broadly.
⦁ A 30-day pause was granted before the limitation takes full effect.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that courts should provide relief “no broader than necessary,” and that nationwide injunctions go beyond the judicial role defined by the U.S. Constitution.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision could undermine federal courts’ ability to check unlawful government actions, especially in cases involving civil rights or immigration enforcement.
Reactions:
⦁ Civil rights groups like the ACLU expressed concern that the ruling could make it harder to protect large groups affected by government policies unless they are all named plaintiffs.
⦁ Legal scholars noted this could prompt more class-action lawsuits or coordinated filings to gain broader protection.
Why It Matters:
This decision significantly changes how legal challenges to federal policies can be enforced — especially in politically charged areas such as immigration, healthcare, and civil liberties. Future lawsuits may now require more narrow, plaintiff-specific relief unless broader remedies are legislatively granted or decided by higher courts.
