US Supreme Court Curbs Lower Courts’ Power to Block Trump’s Policies: What It Means

On June 27, 2025, the US Supreme Court made a significant decision that could reshape how federal policies, like US President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, are challenged in court. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court limited the ability of lower courts to issue sweeping orders that freeze policies nationwide. This ruling, penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, has sparked debate about judicial power, presidential authority, and the future of controversial policies. 

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court ruled that lower courts, specifically district courts, cannot issue “universal injunctions” that halt entire federal policies across the country. This decision came in response to challenges against President Trump’s executive order, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship—a policy that grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, as protected by the 14th Amendment. Every district court that reviewed Trump’s order deemed it likely unconstitutional and issued broad injunctions to stop it entirely.

Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, argued that when the Executive Branch acts unlawfully, “the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” The Court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, emphasized that district courts should tailor their rulings to specific plaintiffs rather than applying them nationwide. However, the Court did not rule on whether Trump’s birthright citizenship policy itself is constitutional, leaving that question for future legal battles.

Why Are Universal Injunctions a Big Deal?

Universal injunctions allow a single district court judge to block a policy across the entire country, not just for the parties involved in the case. These rulings have become more common in recent years, especially during the Obama and Trump administrations. Critics, including voices from both political parties, argue that this practice gives too much power to individual judges. It creates a situation where a single judge can block the president's agenda. 

The rise in these injunctions has fueled a broader debate about judicial overreach. Supporters of universal injunctions say they’re necessary to protect against harmful or unlawful policies, while opponents argue they disrupt the balance of power between the judiciary, Congress, and the president. The Supreme Court’s ruling aims to rein in this trend, ensuring lower courts focus on case-specific remedies rather than nationwide policy freezes.

This decision is a win for the Trump administration, as it reduces the ability of lower courts to block its policies outright. It could pave the way for other controversial executive actions to move forward, at least partially, while legal battles play out.