In a pair of resounding victories for President Donald J. Trump’s administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday restored critical limits on activist judges and cleared the path for a foundational immigration policy to take partial effect.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the rulings as historic moments for constitutional governance.

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS’s policies and his authority to implement them,” Bondi wrote on X.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions—sweeping orders that have been used by lower courts to paralyze executive action and block lawful presidential authority beyond their jurisdictions.

All six justices appointed by Republican presidents sided with the majority, signaling a sharp rebuke to what many legal scholars and constitutional originalists have called an abuse of judicial power.

Under the ruling, lower federal courts will no longer have carte blanche to stop presidential policies from being enforced across the entire nation. Injunctions must now be limited to the actual plaintiffs in the case and not imposed universally—an important correction that returns the courts to their constitutional limits.

This decision immediately impacts ongoing litigation aimed at derailing President Trump’s executive actions—many of which had been stymied by activist judges eager to play policymaker from the bench.

One such example is the legal assault on President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

The Court also ruled separately on that executive order, allowing it to partially take effect in regions not covered by pending injunctions. While the high court has not yet ruled on the substance of the order, it determined that lower courts overstepped in blocking it across the entire country.

“The US Supreme Court allows Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country for now by curtailing federal judges’ ability to block the president’s policies nationwide,” explained Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland.

The executive order—signed by President Trump on Inauguration Day 2025—declared that citizenship under the 14th Amendment applies only to children born in the U.S. to parents who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the policy could affect up to 255,000 births per year—infants currently granted automatic citizenship despite their parents’ unlawful presence or temporary visa status.

Revisiting the 14th Amendment’s Original Intent

The administration argues that the framers of the 14th Amendment—ratified in 1868—never intended to extend citizenship to those not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That clause has long been interpreted to exclude children of foreign diplomats—but President Trump’s order takes the next logical step: excluding children of illegal immigrants.

Proponents of the policy point out that the original intent of the amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves, not to serve as a legal loophole for those who cross the border unlawfully and then give birth on U.S. soil.

The White House maintains that the citizenship clause was designed to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision—which denied citizenship to black Americans—but not to extend citizenship to foreign nationals who reside in the country illegally or temporarily.

Though past Justice Department opinions—such as one in 1995—have claimed a constitutional amendment is required to change birthright citizenship, President Trump has challenged that assumption, asserting that executive interpretation consistent with constitutional intent may be sufficient.

This latest round of Supreme Court rulings bolsters the president’s position and sets the stage for long-overdue constitutional battles over the limits of judicial activism and the proper scope of American citizenship.