For the second consecutive year, former President Donald Trump secured a major legal win at the U.S. Supreme Court, further bolstering his influence over federal policy and cementing the impact of his three appointed justices.
The conservative-majority court ruled 6-3 to limit the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions. Though the case originated from legal challenges to Trump’s birthright citizenship order, the ruling avoided the core constitutional issue and instead focused on the broader question of judicial authority.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said such universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” directing lower courts to reassess their decisions. Judges now have 30 days to revisit any nationwide blocks they imposed on Trump-era policies.
Trump praised the ruling, calling it a necessary rebuke of what he described as judicial overreach. “These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” he said. “This was a colossal abuse of power.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed the sentiment, arguing that a handful of regional judges were acting like “emperors” by halting national policy. Of 40 injunctions issued against Trump’s policies, 35 reportedly came from five jurisdictions.
However, immigration advocates and legal experts expressed concern. The ruling could lead to a fragmented legal landscape, where policies like the birthright citizenship rule are enforced in some states but blocked in others. The ACLU responded by filing a nationwide class-action lawsuit, with Cody Wofsy, the group’s deputy director of immigrants’ rights, stating that “every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional.”
Barrett Reclaims Conservative Favor
Justice Barrett, once criticized by Trump loyalists for siding with liberals in past decisions, notably authored the opinion that delivered this major win. In March, she and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal bloc to rule against the Trump administration in a case over foreign aid reimbursement — prompting backlash from the right.
But Barrett’s latest opinion “nuking universal injunctions” won praise across conservative media. Trump personally thanked her, calling the decision “brilliantly written” and expressing renewed confidence in her jurisprudence.
Liberal Justices Dissent Strongly
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court of enabling a president who has made a “solemn mockery” of the Constitution. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,” she wrote.
Other liberal justices criticized the conservative majority on two additional rulings from June 27:
- Justice Elena Kagan objected to the court’s decision to uphold Texas’ age-verification law for pornographic websites, saying the court failed to examine whether the law infringes on adults’ First Amendment rights.
- Justice Sotomayor warned that allowing parents to remove their children from classes reading books with LGBTQ+ characters “threatens the very essence of public education.”
Surprising Liberal-Conservative Alliances
In two notable cases, Roberts, Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberal justices to reject conservative legal challenges:
- One case sought to dismantle parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), including provisions ensuring free preventive care such as cancer screenings, HIV prevention drugs, and cholesterol medications. The court rejected that challenge.
- Another case challenged the constitutionality of a federal program subsidizing broadband and phone access for low-income Americans. The court again sided with the program, dismissing concerns over congressional overreach.
The court’s more conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—dissented in both cases.
Gerrymandering Case Delayed
The justices were also expected to rule on a politically significant racial gerrymandering case in Louisiana, but instead postponed their decision, requesting further arguments. The case, which affects congressional representation and could influence the 2026 midterm elections, centers on whether Louisiana’s map unlawfully prioritizes race in district design.
The map currently includes a second majority-Black district that Democrats are expected to win, and was drawn to comply with a federal court order. However, a group of non-Black voters challenged the map, arguing it unconstitutionally uses race as the primary factor in redistricting.
The court has not yet announced when it will revisit the case.
The latest rulings underscore the Supreme Court’s pivotal role in shaping executive power, civil rights, and the structure of American governance—particularly in an election year where Donald Trump is again a central political figure.
Let me know if you’d like this in a tweet thread, infographic script, or narration format.
