U.S. Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, Backs Trump in Executive Powers Case

In a major legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday sided with President Donald Trump by restricting the ability of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt executive actions.

As per a report by the BBC, the 6–3 decision stemmed from a legal challenge to Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. While the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself, it stated that sweeping nationwide injunctions from lower courts likely go beyond the authority granted to them by Congress.

According to The Hindu, the ruling is being viewed as a turning point in the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary—a relationship that has often been marked by sharp criticism from the White House.

Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has referred to the pattern of legal challenges as “judicial tyranny.” Similarly, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt recently criticised what she described as an alarming trend of unelected judges intervening in executive matters.

Speaking in May, Leavitt claimed that President Trump had encountered more legal injunctions in just one month than President Biden did over three years, framing it as a sign of exceptional resistance from the judicial branch.

Though the ruling focuses specifically on judicial procedure, it could have wider implications for the separation of powers in the U.S. government. CNN noted that the verdict may strengthen the administration’s hand as it pursues key policies, now less likely to be obstructed by individual judges.

Legal experts pointed out that the Court has yet to address the broader constitutional issue—whether the president has the authority to revoke birthright citizenship through an executive order. That question is expected to be addressed in future legal proceedings.

This decision arrives at a crucial political juncture, as Mr. Trump positions himself for the 2026 midterm elections with a strong emphasis on executive authority, particularly in immigration policy. The ruling is likely to support the administration’s ongoing argument that judicial interventions have impeded the functioning of a democratically elected government.