The Supreme Court of the United States closed out its term with a major victory for President Donald J. Trump — and a resounding blow to activist judges across the country.

In a 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA, the Court ruled that individual federal judges do not have the authority to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — a common legal weapon used to obstruct Trump’s agenda during both terms of his presidency. These injunctions have long been exploited by left-wing legal operatives to freeze Trump administration policies before they could take effect, including his push to reform birthright citizenship.

The ruling comes as part of a string of highly anticipated decisions as the Court wraps up its term. The three liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — all dissented. Sotomayor even went so far as to read her dissent aloud from the bench, an increasingly common melodramatic display among the activist wing of the Court, which Politico described as “a signal of the gravity of her concern.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, striking a firm tone against judicial overreach. “Individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions,” she wrote, underscoring a principle many conservatives have long championed: one unelected judge should not be able to dictate national policy from a single courtroom.

Barrett didn’t hold back, even directing a sharp rebuke at fellow Justice Jackson:

“JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”

The decision is likely to have broad implications for the Trump administration’s ongoing reform agenda. Nationwide injunctions have been wielded by lower courts to stall key immigration enforcement actions, including mass deportation efforts aimed at restoring the rule of law and national sovereignty.

While the ruling doesn’t settle the broader legal debate surrounding Trump’s efforts to overhaul birthright citizenship — a policy that has long incentivized illegal immigration — it does remove one of the judiciary’s most controversial tactics for blocking reform.

Barrett acknowledged this open legal frontier, stating,

“Nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.”

Even so, she made it crystal clear that the judiciary had grossly overstepped.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

With this landmark ruling, President Trump now has a clearer path to implement his America First agenda without being handcuffed by lawless judicial overreach. The decision marks a critical shift toward restoring the proper balance between the branches of government — and one more step toward ending the era of judicial activism.