On Friday, the Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major boost in his fight to expand executive power — a move that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s opinion implies could let him act without effective judicial checks, even if those actions break the law.
In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in a case about birthright citizenship. The court said federal judges cannot issue broad nationwide orders to block executive policies — known as “universal injunctions” — limiting the courts’ ability to stop the president’s actions before they’re widely enforced.
Barrett, writing for the majority, argued that judges have overstepped by blocking policies across the country instead of resolving cases only as they apply to specific parties.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Barrett wrote. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
In other words, even if a court finds the president’s actions illegal, it should not stop those actions nationwide. This position implicitly suggests that courts are limited in their ability to stop a president — like Trump — from enforcing policies that may break the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly disagreed. She delivered a rare, lengthy oral dissent from the bench, warning that the ruling “kneecaps the judiciary’s authority” to hold the president accountable.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor said, referencing the historic importance of birthright citizenship and warning that the decision weakens the courts’ role in checking executive power.
Her dissent recalled the infamous Dred Scott decision, underscoring the high stakes: “This Court… further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
Since returning to office, Trump has pushed aggressive policies, including ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have repeatedly blocked such orders, often using nationwide injunctions to stop enforcement while legal challenges continue.
This ruling changes that. With nationwide injunctions curtailed, judges can only block policies as they apply to individual cases — slowing the courts’ ability to halt potentially unlawful presidential actions before they take effect broadly.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and Barrett, has shown a pattern of supporting Trump’s agenda, granting him unprecedented executive authority.
Trump praised the ruling immediately, singling out Barrett: “I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today – from all accounts.”
The president also thanked Roberts and the other conservative justices for siding with his administration.
This shift marks a troubling step toward unchecked executive power, raising alarms about the future of judicial oversight and the balance of power in American democracy.
As Sotomayor put it, this decision could mean “no right is safe,” and the judiciary’s role as a guardian against executive overreach is now weaker than ever.
