Jackson not only dissented, but did so with “deep disillusionment,” following the majority opinion that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has given to federal courts.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.
It’s one for the ages.
“By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached ‘a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court,’” Barrett writes. “The trend has continued: During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions.”
The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court did not concern the question of the executive order’s legality. It instead concerned the powers of the federal district courts to issue universal injunctions – in this case, those that would bar the executive order from applying to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in a local case.
Barrett correctly bristles at the clear overstep of the judiciary. “The bottom line? The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” she notes.
Trump scores major win in birthright citizenship case as Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions https://t.co/C7fYVCgQWL pic.twitter.com/Bqq1hvPDUP
— New York Post (@nypost) June 27, 2025
🚨 Justice Amy Coney Barrett did NOT mince words in this line from her majority opinion. https://t.co/8Fap70ggyI pic.twitter.com/VJTebmj7tv
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 27, 2025
A huge rulling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges! pic.twitter.com/S3Os7RpV6F
— JD Vance (@JDVance) June 27, 2025