U.S. Supreme Court curbs power of individual judges to block Donald Trump

6-3 ruling, stemming from Mr. Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein American Presidents; Mr. Trump says he can now push through a raft of controversial policies

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday (June 27, 2025) by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions.

In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Mr. Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts”.

The top court did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil.

Related Stories

• Is Trump’s order on birthright citizenship constitutional? | Explained

• What citizenship laws do countries follow?

• 22 States sue to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship

But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings will remove a big roadblock to Mr. Trump’s often highly controversial orders and reaffirm the White House’s power.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Justice Barrett said in an opinion joined by the other five conservative justices on the court.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Trump claims ‘giant win’

Mr. Trump said he can now push through a raft of controversial policies. “This was a tremendous win,” Mr. Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. “I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.”

Mr. Trump said he would now proceed with “so many policies” that had been “wrongly” blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and “sanctuary cities” for migrants.

U.S. Attorney-General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Mr. Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop “rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation”.

Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Mr. Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “terrifying step toward authoritarianism”.

Mr. Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. “This is really the opposite of that,” Mr. Trump said. “This really brings back the Constitution.”

The ruling has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Mr. Trump or future American Presidents.

The case was ostensibly about Mr. Trump’s executive order signed on his first day in office ending birthright citizenship.

But it actually focussed on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction while the matter is being challenged in the courts.

Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington State, leading the President to make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in an effort to get the top court to strike down the use of nationwide injunctions.

The issue has become a rallying cry for Mr. Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of stymying his agenda against the will of voters.

Mr. Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his agenda items that have been blocked by judges around the country — both Democratic and Republican appointees — since he took office in January 2025.

During oral arguments in the case before the Supreme Court in May, both conservative and liberal justices had expressed concerns about the increasing use of nationwide injunctions by district courts in recent years.

‘Nuclear weapon’

Justice Samuel Alito, an arch-conservative, said nationwide injunctions pose a “practical problem” because there are hundreds of district court judges and every one of them is “convinced” they know best.

Solicitor-General John Sauer compared nationwide injunctions to a “nuclear weapon”, saying they “disrupt the Constitution’s careful balancing of the separation of powers”.

The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court’s injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.

Past Presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Mr. Trump, who has seen more in two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.

Mr. Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.

The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”