In a pivotal moment of Donald Trump’s second term, the United States Supreme Court has turned a skeptical and, at times, blistering eye toward the administration’s stance on nationwide injunctions. While the central question of the case doesn't address the constitutionality of modifying the 14th Amendment—a long-shot goal of Trump—the real issue at stake is just as critical: Can federal judges block executive actions on a national scale?
This seemingly procedural question could have massive consequences. If the Trump administration gets its way, lower federal courts would no longer be able to issue rulings that halt policies nationwide. Instead, any injunction would only apply to the plaintiffs directly involved in a given case.
As always, I will make sure you are updated as the news comes in, but I can only do it with your support. Now more than ever, with threats to my safety and freedom, I need your help to keep this work going. Please consider subscribing today:
But during oral arguments, the justices—across ideological lines—showed deep reservations about such a sweeping restriction on judicial power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut to the heart of the issue with a dramatic hypothetical: if the government were to suddenly order the confiscation of all civilian firearms in direct violation of the Second Amendment, under the Trump view, courts couldn’t stop it with a nationwide injunction. "We couldn’t stop that?" she asked.
Justice Elena Kagan was even more blunt: "The government keeps losing. This is happening right now: Every court has ruled against you."
That comment wasn’t just rhetorical flourish. It pointed to a pattern of losses the administration has racked up in the lower courts, particularly when rolling out controversial immigration policies. If courts are stripped of the ability to issue broad injunctions, critics argue, the executive branch could continue implementing unlawful policies unchecked, avoiding the scrutiny of the Supreme Court altogether.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was especially pointed. She compared the administration’s proposal to a “catch me if you can” approach to governance, one that would allow illegal policies to remain in effect until a perfect plaintiff in a perfect jurisdiction brings a challenge that finally makes its way to the top.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch also appeared critical of the administration’s arguments. Barrett echoed Alito’s earlier skepticism: “What’s the point of this?” And Gorsuch notably praised Kagan’s line of questioning, often a signal of alignment during oral arguments.
Meanwhile, New Jersey’s Solicitor General, Jeremy Feigenbaum, argued for a middle ground: yes, judges should be able to issue nationwide injunctions, but only under narrow and specific conditions. That prompted a key question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed to be probing whether a narrow, principled limitation could guide the Court’s ruling without fully endorsing the administration’s extreme position.
The significance of this case cannot be overstated. Though framed as a procedural matter, the ability of courts to issue nationwide injunctions has become one of the most potent checks on presidential power in the modern era. Strip it away, and you open the door to a more aggressive, less accountable executive.
As of now, it appears likely that there are at least five votes against the Trump administration’s position: Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan. More may join. Chief Justice Roberts remains a wild card, but his pointed questioning suggests he is weighing a compromise approach rather than a full endorsement of the administration’s request. Now, anything is possible here, so we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides.
When will we know the outcome? The Court typically hands down decisions in argued cases by the end of June, and there’s no reason to believe this case will be an exception. Depending on how sharply the Court wants to signal its stance, we may even see a decision sooner.
What’s clear, however, is this: the Trump administration walked into the Supreme Court hoping to disarm one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools. Instead, it may walk out with a historic rebuke—and a precedent that affirms the court’s ability to check presidential overreach for years to come.
Stay tuned. This one matters.
Share this post