The High Court Limits Individual Judges' Nationwide Injunction Powers
Federal judges' authority to issue injunctions has been limited by the Supreme Court
Get ready folks, here's a breakdown of the Supreme Court's recent decision that's stirring quite a bit of chatter. The court has put the brakes on individual federal judges' powers to issue nationwide injunctions, those court orders that halt the enforcement of laws or policies nationwide, rather than just affecting the parties involved in the case.
The Backstory
This decision stems from lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at denying automatic U.S. citizenship (birthright citizenship) to children born on U.S. soil to parents who were in the country illegally or temporarily. This order straight-up clashed with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
Lower federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire handed out some "universal" or nationwide injunctions that blocked federal agencies from implementing Trump's executive order anywhere in the country. The Department of Justice stepped in, filing an emergency application with the Supreme Court, questioning whether courts can issue relief that affects parties beyond the plaintiffs before them.
The Ruling
In a 6-3 decision that largely followed ideological lines, the Court ruled that universal or nationwide injunctions probably exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress. Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned the majority opinion, stressing that federal courts don't have "general oversight" over the executive branch and must limit injunctions to offer relief only to the parties involved in the lawsuit, unless the case has been converted into a class action.
The ruling enabled the Trump administration to partially enforce the executive order while legal proceedings continue, but only to the extent that previous injunctions were broader than necessary to grant relief to actual plaintiffs. The Court didn't rule on the constitutionality or merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order itself; it focused solely on limiting the scope of injunctions.
Barrett wasn't shy about pointing out that nationwide injunctions were "conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history" and took issue with their increased use in recent decades, a practice used by both liberal and conservative litigants. This ruling takes a big swing at what some perceived as a politicized and forum-shopping judicial practice, where individual judges could block policies nationwide based on cases originating in their districts.
The Implications
Now, federal judges generally are prohibited from issuing injunctions blocking federal policies beyond the parties involved, unless procedural rules for broader class actions are met. This ruling slashes the power of single district judges to impose sweeping blocks on federal government policies.
Most experts see this move as a major shift in judicial power, reining in what many viewed as an unconventional and controversial tool that affected national policy across various administrations.
In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, federal judges will be restricted from issuing nationwide injunctions that affect parties beyond the litigants in a case, unless it transforms into a class action. This decision in policy-and-legislation and politics has significant implications, as it limits the power of individual district judges to impose sweeping blocks on federal government policies, which is part of the general news being discussed.
