The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to limit the authority of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions has triggered sharp dissent from its liberal justices, underscoring a deep ideological divide over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.
In a 6–3 ruling, the Court’s conservative majority concluded that lower courts likely lack the constitutional authority to impose broad, nationwide blocks on executive orders—most notably, in this case, President Donald Trump’s order concerning birthright citizenship. The ruling marks a significant recalibration of judicial reach, particularly targeting a legal mechanism frequently used to stall or derail federal policies before they take effect.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a stark warning: “The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other.” She argued the majority’s decision threatens the judiciary’s ability to provide timely and effective relief, particularly when civil rights or constitutional protections are at stake.
Amazing. Justice Barrett goes straight after Justice Jackson’s inability to do law. Jackson wants to tell the entire executive branch what to do and refuses to comply with Constitutional limitations. Insanely dangerous, and Barrett is right to call it out. pic.twitter.com/lRmkQvEgYZ
— May Mailman (@MayMailman) June 27, 2025
Sotomayor added that if courts are barred from issuing nationwide injunctions outside of class actions, even “plainly unlawful policies” could remain in effect until lengthy litigation concludes. She invoked hypothetical scenarios—a future administration seizing firearms or restricting religious gatherings—to illustrate what she views as the potential dangers of a constrained judiciary.
Justice Jackson, in a separate dissent, characterized the ruling as an “existential threat” to the judicial system itself. She expressed concern that undermining lower court authority would lead to a broader erosion of respect for judicial decisions, accelerating a breakdown of institutional trust. “This Court’s complicity… will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions,” she wrote.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, responded forcefully. She dismissed Jackson’s position as lacking constitutional grounding and historical precedent, warning that it promotes judicial overreach. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett stated. She maintained that judges are bound by legal limits and that overstepping those bounds—especially through sweeping injunctions—undermines the separation of powers.
The immediate legal ramifications are already unfolding. Several progressive legal groups filed new class-action suits within hours of the ruling, seeking narrower but still potent forms of injunctive relief. The ruling forces litigants to pivot strategies, potentially lengthening the timeline for challenges to executive policies.
This decision adds to a growing body of jurisprudence under the Court’s current conservative majority that reins in what it sees as judicial activism. It marks a turning point in the courts’ ability to act as a national check on presidential power—shifting greater responsibility back to Congress and higher courts for systemic relief.
