President Trump’s executive actions on immigration, agency rollbacks, and federal hiring, have been repeatedly halted by district court “universal injunctions,” even though they were issued in just one jurisdiction. This tactic, known as lawfare, is the weapon of leftists using activist judges to block policy. Lower courts in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington and DC have issued some 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions aimed at Trump’s policies. The Justice Department has sued entire benches in Maryland, DC and beyond, arguing they are obstructing Constitutional executive authority. In a ruling on birthright citizenship, however, the Supreme Court may have clipped the wings of the Democratic Party’s policy vultures.
Mainstream media outlets tried to sway public opinion in favor of lawfare, even painting Trump’s lawsuit against DC and Maryland judges as an unprecedented and aggressive escalation. CBS News emphasized that the DOJ’s move “unprecedentedly attack[s] judicial independence.” PBS NewsHour framed the suit as “an unusual move” prompted by those nationwide blocks. Fox News, however, aligned with Trump, framing it as a justified pushback against activist overreach. In short: the left claims Trump is undermining the judiciary, while conservatives say he’s defending separation of powers. But then, on June 27, the Supreme Court, by a 6–3 majority, ruled in Trump v. CASA that lower courts lack the authority to impose universal injunctions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, noted that such sweeping powers were “conspicuously nonexistent” historically. She affirmed that such power is not found anywhere in the Judiciary Act of 1789 nor in the constitutional history of the courts. This ruling means that injunctions can only apply to named plaintiffs forming “complete relief,” not everyone nationwide. This ruling is a direct rebuke to the activist benches that rolled out nationwide blocks. Lower courts no longer have cover to issue sweeping orders stalling executive actions across fifty states. Those Maryland and DC judges are legally pinpointed as overstepping their equitable power in a historic judgment on judicial restraint. Here on out, legal fights must play out jurisdiction by jurisdiction, on their actual merits.
The Court acknowledged class actions and state-led challenges as valid alternatives, but those come with burdens like certification and jurisdiction. This decision is a stinging rebuke of the kind of judicial activism that has plagued the American justice system and weaponized it against not only the Executive Branch, but every American citizen. The checks and balances designed by the Founders placed limits on both executive and judicial authority. The Constitutional order of separation of powers has been recalibrated. The shift means Democrats and other challengers can’t casually shop for friendly judges in activist districts to halt federal policy nationwide. SCOTUS may have “kept the Republic” with this decision. As written in Amos 5:24, “let justice run down like water, And righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Sources:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-judges-lawsuit-170f6b00cc80b88f0120a079ac8818b0
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-universal-injunctions/
