The Supreme Court Just Handed Trump a Constitutional Power Grab

By limiting nationwide injunctions, the Court has weakened the judiciary’s ability to check executive overreach—and real families will pay the price

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision limiting federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions represents more than a procedural victory for the Trump administration—it’s a fundamental shift in the balance of power that should alarm anyone who values constitutional checks and balances.

The 6-3 ruling, split predictably along ideological lines, emerged from challenges to Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. While the Court didn’t rule on the constitutional merits of that deeply problematic order, it did something arguably more consequential: it stripped away one of the judiciary’s most effective tools for protecting constitutional rights nationwide.

What This Really Means

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump’s directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, yet now individual federal judges lack the authority to protect these children with nationwide relief. The ruling means that using injunctions as a default option to block Trump executive orders is effectively dead.

This isn’t just about birthright citizenship, though that issue alone should trouble us. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This language, enacted after the Civil War to reverse the infamous Dred Scott decision, couldn’t be clearer in its intent.

Trump wants to adopt a completely new meaning of the language that would confer citizenship only on those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident—a interpretation that is considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago.

The Broader Constitutional Crisis

What makes yesterday’s decision so troubling isn’t just its immediate impact on immigration policy. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision at the end of its 2024-2025 term that will drastically alter the ability for courts to check presidential power. This represents a seismic shift in how our constitutional system operates.

For decades, nationwide injunctions have served as a crucial democratic safety valve. When a president—any president—oversteps constitutional bounds, federal judges could step in to protect rights nationwide, not just in their local jurisdictions. This ensured that constitutional violations couldn’t simply be implemented in friendly judicial districts while challenges slowly wound their way through the courts.

Now, the Trump administration can implement potentially unconstitutional policies nationwide while opponents must fight district by district, circuit by circuit—a process that could take years while constitutional violations continue unchecked.

The Human Cost

Within two hours of the Supreme Court ruling, lawyers for immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of their clients, recognizing the urgent need for alternative legal strategies. But these piecemeal approaches cannot match the comprehensive protection that nationwide injunctions provided.

Consider what this means for real families: pregnant women unsure whether their American-born children will be citizens, mixed-status families facing separation, and communities living in fear of policies that fly in the face of 157 years of constitutional interpretation.

A Dangerous Precedent

Trump called the ruling a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law”, but this characterization turns constitutional principle on its head. The separation of powers requires robust judicial oversight of executive action, not the neutering of judicial authority.

The irony is stark: a Court that frequently lectures about judicial restraint has just dramatically expanded executive power while constraining its own ability to serve as a constitutional check. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration” could use this precedent to implement equally troubling policies without effective judicial oversight.

What Comes Next

This decision represents more than a legal setback—it’s a fundamental restructuring of American governance that concentrates power in the executive branch at the expense of constitutional protections. The Court’s conservative majority has consistently shown deference to executive power when wielded by Republican presidents, and this ruling crystallizes that dangerous trend.

Americans who care about constitutional governance must recognize what’s at stake. When the judiciary voluntarily surrenders tools for protecting constitutional rights, it falls to Congress, state governments, and ultimately the people to defend our foundational principles.

The fight over birthright citizenship will continue in the courts, but it will now be harder, longer, and less certain. More importantly, the broader fight for constitutional balance has just become exponentially more difficult. Yesterday’s ruling may have been framed as a victory for executive power, but it reads more like a surrender of judicial responsibility in the face of authoritarian overreach.

In the end, the Supreme Court’s decision to limit nationwide injunctions isn’t just about immigration policy or judicial procedure—it’s about whether our constitutional system can still protect individual rights when those in power choose to ignore them. Yesterday’s ruling suggests the answer is increasingly uncertain.