Trump Gains Power as Judges Lose Grip

Written by Elizabeth Harper.

On the final day of its term, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that significantly bolsters President Donald Trump’s ability to advance his policy agenda by curbing the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This decision, which leaves the contentious issue of birthright citizenship unresolved, reshapes the landscape of executive power and judicial oversight. The ruling has sparked intense debate, with supporters celebrating it as a defense of constitutional authority and critics warning of its potential to undermine the rule of law. This article examines the implications of the decision, its broader context, and its impact on ongoing legal battles.

Scope of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision restricts plaintiffs’ ability to secure nationwide injunctions that temporarily halt government policies, a tool frequently used to challenge Trump’s initiatives. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clarified that federal courts lack the authority to exercise broad oversight over the executive branch. Instead, their role is confined to resolving specific cases within the bounds of congressional authorization. While the ruling limits nationwide injunctions, it preserves the option for plaintiffs to seek relief through class-action lawsuits or remedies tailored to specific harms.

This nuanced decision directly affects Trump’s opponents, who now face heightened procedural barriers when attempting to block his policies on a national scale. For instance, challenges to executive actions on immigration or environmental regulations may require more targeted legal strategies. The Court’s refusal to rule definitively on Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship—an executive order issued on February 19, 2025—leaves that issue to lower courts, but the broader ruling empowers the administration to move forward with other policies previously stalled by judicial orders.

Reactions and Legal Implications

President Trump hailed the ruling as a “victory for the Constitution,” arguing that it curtails the overuse of nationwide injunctions that have disrupted executive functions. From the White House, he emphasized that the decision enables a range of policies to proceed, including those related to immigration enforcement and regulatory reforms. Vice President JD Vance echoed this sentiment, describing the ruling as a “huge win” that reinforces the principle that all branches of government, including the judiciary, must adhere to legal boundaries. Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would ultimately uphold the birthright citizenship order if it reaches a merits review.

In contrast, dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the majority’s approach. Sotomayor accused the Court of enabling the administration’s “gamesmanship” by sidestepping the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship policy while limiting judicial checks. Jackson, in a solo dissent, warned that the ruling poses “an existential threat to the rule of law” by allowing potential constitutional violations to go unchecked. These dissents highlight concerns that the decision could embolden future administrations to pursue controversial policies with reduced judicial scrutiny.

Immigrants’ rights groups, such as the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and CASA, expressed profound disappointment. Conchita Cruz, co-founder of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, called the ruling a “sad day” for those seeking judicial protection. Individual plaintiffs, identified by pseudonyms due to their undocumented status, voiced determination to continue their fight through class-action lawsuits. Legal teams have already filed amended complaints to certify a nationwide class for children born or expected after the birthright citizenship order, signaling a shift to alternative legal strategies to challenge the policy.

Additional Rulings and Broader Context

Beyond the injunction case, the Supreme Court addressed several other significant issues on its final day, reflecting the breadth of its influence on public policy. The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandates, affirming the role of a task force recommending cost-free health services while classifying its members as “inferior” officers not requiring presidential appointment. It also sustained government programs reducing broadband and telephone costs for rural and low-income communities, rejecting claims of separation-of-powers violations.

In a notable First Amendment ruling, the Court supported religious parents in a suburban Washington, D.C., school district who sought to opt their children out of classroom engagement with LGBTQ+-themed books. The decision found that the district’s refusal to allow opt-outs violated parents’ free exercise rights, reinforcing protections for religious beliefs in educational settings. Additionally, the Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for pornographic websites, a significant victory for states seeking to regulate online content. The Court’s decision to hold over a Louisiana congressional map case for another term ensures the continued use of a district that bolsters Black and Democratic representation, highlighting ongoing tensions over redistricting.

These rulings collectively underscore the Court’s pivotal role in shaping policy across diverse domains, from healthcare and technology to education and voting rights. The decisions reflect a judiciary navigating complex constitutional questions, often balancing individual rights against governmental authority. Recent trends indicate that the Supreme Court has increasingly favored executive discretion in cases involving administrative actions, a pattern evident in challenges to immigration and environmental policies over the past decade.

Our Take

The Supreme Court’s decision to limit nationwide injunctions marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, empowering President Trump to advance his agenda with fewer immediate obstacles. While the ruling preserves avenues for targeted relief, such as class-action lawsuits, it raises legitimate concerns about the judiciary’s ability to serve as a check on potentially unconstitutional policies. The Court’s refusal to address the birthright citizenship issue directly leaves vulnerable communities in limbo, underscoring the need for lower courts to act swiftly and decisively. As legal battles continue, this ruling highlights the delicate interplay between constitutional protections and executive authority, demanding careful oversight to ensure that neither overreach nor underreach undermines the rule of law. Policymakers and advocates must adapt to this evolving legal landscape, prioritizing strategies that safeguard both individual rights and democratic principles.