President Donald Trump and the American people scored another major victory from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), putting an end, at least for now, to left-wing overreach and lawfare via universal injunctions.
Left-wing activist groups have judge-shopped in various districts around the country, hoping for a partisan judge to issue a nationwide, universal injunction to stop the Trump agenda. In many cases, the activists and judges know the case will be overturned and Trump will come out the victor. But the goal, in these cases, is to stall the Trump agenda as long as humanly possible. It’s lawfare at its most corrupt, and SCOTUS just put an end to it.
Ironically, the decision comes from a birthright citizenship case that Trump will almost certainly lose as it maneuvers its way through the courts. But perhaps that was the point? To force a liberal judge to offer a universal injunction so that the Trump administration could fast-track that issue to SCOTUS.
Here’s what the SCOTUS majority ruled on universal injunctions
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion in Trump v. CASA, Inc. held that federal courts exceeded their authority by issuing “universal injunctions” blocking President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 nationwide. The Court did not rule on the legality of the Executive Order itself—which denies birthright citizenship in some cases—but instead focused on whether lower courts had the power under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue nationwide injunctions.
“The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Barrett said in the majority opinion. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”
Barrett explained that courts at the founding did not issue such broad injunctions, and thus modern federal courts lack that authority under long-established precedent. She further reasoned that injunctions should be tailored to provide “complete relief” only to the plaintiffs in the case—not to everyone who might be affected.
What did the liberal SCOTUS Justices argue?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent is an over-the-top and theatrical defense of universal injunctions that reads more like a political manifesto than a judicial opinion.
She argues that federal courts must be able to block illegal government action, as they see it, not just for plaintiffs, but for everyone. It’s a scary vision where individual judges act as all-purpose enforcers of constitutional rights. Jackson warns that restricting this power tears a “gash” in the Constitution and could inflict a “mortal wound” on the judiciary’s role. She claims that judges aren’t just referees settling disputes but constitutional guardians who must prevent unlawful executive policies from taking root anywhere.
But Justice Barrett wasn’t having it, offering a blistering takedown in the majority opinion, easily dismantling it.
Barrett notes that universal injunctions are a modern invention. If anything, Barrett argues, Jackson’s vision of judicial power ignores both legal history and separation of powers, embracing the concept of judicial supremacy. Allowing judges to issue universal injunctions at will turns every district judge into a national policymaker. Barrett rightly sees that as dangerous and destabilizing.
In the end, Jackson writes as if the sky is falling, claiming courts will be powerless to protect the public. Barrett calmly replies that courts still protect plaintiffs—they just don’t get to act like emperors, a concept the Radical Left keeps claiming is being embraced by conservatives. Judicial authority, Barrett said, isn’t unlimited.
What does this mean for the lawfare strategy?
This is a major win—not just for Trump, but for both the integrity of the judicial system and the American people.
For years, left-wing activists have used lawfare as a political weapon, finding sympathetic judges in blue districts to issue universal injunctions that block conservative policies nationwide, even before they take effect. It’s been their favorite tactic to override the will of voters by letting unelected judges function as mini-dictators. Conservative groups did the same, just not to this extent. And it was done in bad faith.
Justice Barrett’s opinion just cut the legs out from under that strategy. No longer can a random activist judge in Seattle or San Francisco block federal law coast-to-coast because some activist group doesn’t like a policy. Lawsuits now only protect the actual plaintiffs. Quite the concept, right!? This shuts down the Left’s “sue-and-freeze” playbook that’s been used to paralyze Trump’s agenda and bully Republican administrations into submission.
And let’s not gloss over the fact that Trump is once again vindicated. He signed the Executive Order on birthright citizenship. The activist courts tried to kill it with a universal injunction. But now, the Supreme Court stepped in and affirmed what Trump—and conservatives—had been saying all along: the judiciary is out of control and hyper-partisan.
This decision is a brutal loss for the Radical Left and a massive blow to the tactic of forum-shopping for national wins. The lawfare era is crumbling, and it’s Trump that’s still standing.
Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3 p.m. – 7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on X, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Jason Rantz
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://mynorthwest.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
