Supreme Court curtails federal court power over nationwide injunctions
- The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving the limitations of federal court injunctions amid President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
- The Court decided in a 6-3 split that injunctions must be confined to the specific plaintiffs involved in a case, rather than applying universally.
- This ruling represents a major shift in judicial authority regarding immigration policy and could influence future cases involving presidential actions.
In the context of ongoing discussions about judicial power and immigration policy, the Supreme Court addressed a significant case involving the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This case emerged amid President Donald Trump's administration's controversial executive order concerning birthright citizenship and was heard recently. The ruling, which came out with a sharply divided 6-3 decision, curtailed the ability of lower federal courts to grant 'universal injunctions' that could apply to all individuals, not just those specifically involved in a lawsuit. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that judicial relief should be limited to rectifying the specific grievances of the plaintiffs and should not extend to non-parties affected by policies. By addressing the legality and appropriateness of broad injunctions, the Court effectively kept in place certain protections for plaintiff states while allowing the executive order to be implemented against those not party to the current lawsuits. This ruling signified a critical re-evaluation of judicial authority within the context of immigration policy and the longstanding debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment's interpretation, which stipulates citizenship eligibility for