HUGE WIN! Supreme Court Rules Nationwide Injunctions by District Courts EXCEED Congressional Authority — Clears Path for Citizenship Crackdown

In A Devastating Blow to Judicial Tyranny, Supreme Court Rules Lower Courts Cannot Enact National Injunctions, Green-Lighting Mass Deportations & An End to Birthright Citizenship!

Jun 28, 2025

June 28, 2025

FINALLY!

In a historic decision, the United States Supreme Court delivered a powerful rebuke of activist judges and handed President Trump a pivotal legal victory on Friday.

The decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., reaffirms the rightful balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, curbing the ability of unelected district judges to paralyze the will of a duly elected president.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that federal district courts lack the constitutional or statutory authority to issue so-called ‘universal injunctions’ — sweeping orders that block government policies nationwide, often at the request of left-wing advocacy groups.

The case stemmed from challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (90 Fed. Reg. 8449, 2025).

Donald J. Trump (2nd Term), Executive Order 14160—Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/375963

This bold order sought to clarify the scope of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, addressing long-standing concerns about its misapplication to those not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Predictably, liberal strongholds in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts saw district courts issue universal injunctions, attempting to block the order’s enforcement not just for the plaintiffs but for everyone, everywhere.

These injunctions, cheered by open-borders advocates and far-left elites, threatened to derail a policy aimed at safeguarding the integrity of American citizenship.

Shockingly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, dismantled the legal foundation of these injunctions with surgical precision.

Joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, Barrett declared that such “universal” remedies lack any historical basis in the equitable traditions of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

With minor adjustments, it is the same system we have today.

Congress has continued to build on the interpretation of the drafters of the first judiciary act in exercising a discretionary power to expand or restrict Federal court jurisdiction.

While opinions as to what constitutes the proper balance of Federal and state concerns vary no less today than they did two centuries ago, the fact that today’s Federal court system closely resembles the one created in 1789 suggests that the First Congress performed its job admirably.

In contrast, the liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — issued fiery dissents dripping with ideological panic. Jackson even suggested the ruling could inflict a “mortal wound” on the Constitution.

The Court stopped short of ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but the implications are massive.

By gutting the lower court’s ability to halt implementation nationwide, the path is now clear for the Trump administration to enforce its definition of birthright citizenship.