
newYou can listen to Fox’s news articles!
The Supreme Court granted the president’s partial stay on Friday Donald TrumpThe demand to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions recognizes the administration’s Parr victory as it appears to carry out many of its top priorities through executive orders and actions.
The judge ruled 6-3 so that lower courts could issue an injunction in certain cases.
“The application will not be filed – therefore we will not address – the question of whether the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. “The question before us is one of the remedies: whether federal courts have the fair authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789?”
“While a universal injunction could only be justified as an exercise of fair power, Congress did not grant such power to federal courts,” she added.
The Supreme Court agreed in April He issued a “universal” injunction against Trump’s birthright executive order to hear a unified case focused on three lower court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington.
However, it was not the main focus of the appeal, or the oral discussion on May 15th before the High Court.
Rather, the Attorney General considered whether lower courts should have the power to issue national injunctions, or whether they exceed their powers, as argued by US lawyer D. John Sauer.
100 Day Injunction, Trial, “Teflondon”: Trump’s second term meets the biggest test in court

President Donald Trump speaks to a reporter from the White House’s Oval Office in Washington, DC, after signing a series of executive orders and declarations. (Anna Money Maker/Getty Images)
The ruling is expected to have a drastic impact on US district courts, coming when presidents, including both Democrats and Republican administrations, attempt to use executive orders as a way to avoid the clunky, slow-moving Congress.
Federal judges across the country have it Blocked Trump ban Transgender people serving in the US military have ordered the reinstatement of the core functions of the US International Development Agency.
Justice across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree in oral debate this month that the use of universal injunctions has skyrocketed in recent years, but after more than two hours it remained divided on how to proceed.
As judges wrestled with a brief summary of procedural questions about whether to reduce the use of universal injunctions and whether to reduce the legal standards that should control them, no easy solution to the troublesome legal issues emerged.
The 9th Circuit rejects Trump’s bid to restore birthright citizenship order

President Trump gestured to the media a day after he announced new tariffs in China, Japan and India before riding the Marines at the White House on April 3, 2025. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Sauer argued that lower court judges used a universal injunction to act beyond their authority and block the legal authority of the sitting president.
However, Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that blocking or limiting lower court injunctions could lead to hundreds or even thousands of new cases.
“Your theory here claims that Article III and the principle of fairness argues. [clause] Both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to make your argument,” she later said. supreme court It has no power. ”
Meanwhile, Judge Elena Kagan pointed to the practical challenge of hoping that lower courts, who are already facing hundreds of federal lawsuits during Trump’s second term, will shave all the issues they are currently dealing with.

Supreme Court judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson are seen in this split image. Photo by Getty Images. (Getty Images)
She also pointed out to Sauer that the Trump administration has lost all federal lawsuits challenging the executive order of birthright citizenship, including judge Trump, appointed during his first term.
As expected, several conservative justice in court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, have expressed criticism of the universal injunction.
General Jeremy Fagenbaum, a state-representative New Jersey lawyer, has acknowledged that there may be alternative federal court remedies other than national injunctions. However, in certain cases, the alternative to class action lawsuits offered by the Trump administration could not move faster than granting relief in certain cases.
“We are sympathetic to some of the concerns about the US running the table in certain cases about penetration,” he said. “We just don’t think it supports the bright line rule that it’s never available.”
Roberts and Sotomayor questioned Feigenbaum more deeply about how the district court would decide how to ensure that it follows if a universal injunction should not be a preferred remedy.
Lawyers for the Trump administration called on the High Court to review the cases earlier this year, claiming that each acted beyond their authority by preventing Trump’s birthright citizenship order from blocking Trump’s nationally.
Attorney General John Saurer highlighted this point during an oral debate earlier this month, telling the judge that the universal injunction “should be quick to make high scores, low information decisions.”
“They operate asymmetrically and force the government to win everywhere,” he said. He said it was “inverted” in the view of the Trump administration, the usual hierarchical hierarchy of appeals.
The Supreme Court decision has knockdown effects both in the near term and in the long term; Over 300 Federal Litigations It has been challenging the White House actions since Trump’s second presidency began on January 20, 2025.
This is a developing story. Please check for updates.