SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide
President Donald J. Trump notched another pivotal victory on Friday as the Supreme Court struck down the ability of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions — a legal tool that has long been abused to derail his constitutional agenda.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district judges no longer have the authority to issue sweeping national injunctions blocking executive actions from coast to coast. All six justices appointed by Republican presidents stood united in the majority, delivering a sharp blow to those using the courts as a political cudgel against President Trump’s lawful directives.
The case centered on Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens or temporary visa holders. While the Court did not yet weigh in on the substance of the order, it gutted the nationwide judicial blocks that had stalled its enforcement.
For a Nation That Believes, Builds, and Never Backs Down
Become a member to support our mission and access exclusive content.
View PlansFriday’s ruling marked a turning point in the battle over judicial overreach, restoring the constitutional role of the courts as adjudicators for actual cases—not de facto lawmakers with nationwide veto power.
For years, activist judges in liberal strongholds like Maryland and Massachusetts have issued universal injunctions to block Trump’s immigration, border security, and national security policies—even in states far outside their jurisdiction. That ends now.
From this point forward, federal judges can only issue relief to the plaintiffs before them, not to the entire nation.
The decision is a major setback for the progressive legal resistance, which has relied heavily on judge-shopping and courtroom obstructionism to stop the Trump administration from executing the will of the American people.
Trump’s executive order—issued during his second inauguration—challenges the blanket interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which for over a century has been taken to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen.
President Trump’s view, supported by constitutional scholars and historical context, asserts that the 14th Amendment was crafted to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, not to reward illegal immigration or visa tourism.
The order reinterprets the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of illegal aliens—arguing that individuals who enter the country unlawfully are not under full U.S. jurisdiction.
While lower courts had issued blanket injunctions to freeze the policy nationwide, the DOJ appealed to the Supreme Court, filing an emergency application challenging the legitimacy of such sweeping judicial interference.
In a rare move, the justices heard oral arguments in May—a clear signal of the Court’s desire to rein in runaway lower court power.
“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,” Democracy Docket reported.
“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.”
Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland broke down the result:
“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.”
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has been a leading voice for judicial accountability. Appearing on Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt Tonight, Jordan explained that the House has already passed legislation to stop this abuse.
“We passed the legislation that said one of these federal district judges who issues an injunction, the injunction shouldn’t apply nationwide,” Jordan said. “It should apply to the parties in that case in that jurisdiction, not to the entire country.”
The House passed the “No Rogue Judges Act” on April 9 by a 219-213 vote, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has yet to act.
For a Nation That Believes, Builds, and Never Backs Down
Become a member to support our mission and access exclusive content.
View PlansJordan emphasized the principle behind the legislation:
“This is about fundamental fairness.”
Friday’s Supreme Court decision puts the Constitution back in the driver’s seat. It deals a critical blow to judicial activism, reaffirms President Trump’s authority, and reignites momentum behind long-overdue reforms in the federal judiciary.