The Supreme Court’s handed President Trump a massive ruling. But there’s more beneath the surface.
Because a top lawyer’s just noticed something about this SCOTUS ruling that no one else saw.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley Points Out Added Benefit In SCOTUS Win For Trump
In a decisive 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has handed a significant victory to the Trump administration by curbing the use of nationwide injunctions that had stalled President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The decision, issued on Friday, June 27, 2025, restricts federal judges from issuing sweeping blocks on executive actions, marking a pivotal moment for the administration’s immigration agenda.
The case stemmed from Trump’s January 20 executive order, which sought to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who entered illegally or on temporary visas. Lower courts had issued so-called nationwide injunctions, halting the policy’s implementation across the country. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a clear win for the administration.
“What I’ve seen looks like a victory for the Trump Administration,” Turley said. “Justice Barrett is saying the only way for justices to exercise this type of universal injunction in some of these cases is equitable relief. She doesn’t find evidence that it was granted to these judges. They indicate the administration is likely to prevail on this issue.”
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, avoided ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order under the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act. Instead, it zeroed in on the scope of judicial authority. “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the conservative majority stated. The Court granted the administration’s request for a partial stay, limiting injunctions to only what is necessary to provide relief to specific plaintiffs with standing.
Turley further emphasized the ruling’s impact, noting it curbs the ability of individual district judges to derail federal policy. “[It’s] awfully good news for this administration,” he said. “They have been really hit with these small attacks, all these individual district judges effectively freezing federal policy and programs across the country. So it does appear to be a victory. It may be a bit more nuanced but so far it looks like a good day for the Trump Administration.”
The Supreme Court’s special oral argument session on May 15 spotlighted the contentious practice of nationwide injunctions. These broad judicial orders had become a frequent tool for lower courts to block Trump’s policies, particularly on immigration. The administration argued that such injunctions overstepped judicial bounds, paralyzing executive action on a national scale.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, speaking on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” highlighted a suggestion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent that class actions could be an alternative to universal injunctions. “Even that, I think, would be a victory for the Trump Administration in the sense that class actions are much more rigorous and regulated than the idea of these district judges in a completely untethered way just making rulings that apply to the whole country,” McCarthy told co-host Dana Perino.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honing noted that the ruling strengthens the reach of Trump’s executive orders. She explained that future injunctions must now be “as narrow as possible,” preventing judges from issuing overly expansive rulings that halt policies beyond what is necessary for the case at hand.
The ideological divide was evident in the 6-3 decision, with the Court’s conservative majority aligning with the administration’s position. The ruling directs lower courts to reassess their injunctions in line with principles of equity, ensuring that judicial remedies are tailored to specific plaintiffs rather than blanket prohibitions.
President Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, calling it a “giant win.” He argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to “babies of slaves (same year!)” and suggested that some immigrants exploit the system to secure U.S. citizenship for their children.
The Court’s opinion also included a 30-day delay before Trump’s birthright citizenship order can take effect, allowing time for further legal challenges. This buffer period reflects a cautious approach, balancing the administration’s policy goals with ongoing judicial scrutiny.
The ruling marks a turning point in the battle over executive authority and judicial overreach. By limiting nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court has cleared a path for the Trump administration to pursue its immigration policies with fewer obstacles from lower courts.
For the administration, the decision is a critical step toward implementing its vision for immigration reform. It reinforces the executive’s ability to act decisively without being hamstrung by individual judges issuing nationwide blocks.
