ArcaMax

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against "universal injunctions" last week, President Donald Trump hailed the decision as a "GIANT WIN" for his administration. Trump added that "the Birthright Citizenship Hoax" -- by which he meant the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment -- also had been "hit hard," albeit "indirectly."

That take was misleading in two important ways. First, the issue that the court addressed goes far beyond this particular administration, potentially affecting progressive policies pursued by Democrats as well as conservative policies favored by Republicans. Second, the majority said nothing about the legal merits of Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship by presidential fiat, which remains just as constitutionally dubious as it always was.

In an executive order he issued on his first day in office, Trump purported to exclude children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary legal visitors from U.S. citizenship. From now on, he said, U.S.-born children will qualify for that status only if at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

That decree provoked lawsuits by individuals, organizations and states, several of which resulted in preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the order across the country. The question for the Supreme Court was whether federal courts hearing challenges to executive actions or federal legislation are authorized to issue injunctions that extend beyond the plaintiffs in the cases before them.

Such injunctions have become increasingly common in recent decades as both Republicans and Democrats have used them to frustrate the plans of the opposing party. From 1963 to 2023, according to a 2024 study, federal courts issued 127 universal injunctions, more than three-quarters of which were granted during the administrations of four presidents: George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.

The targets of those orders covered a wide range, including international travel restrictions, COVID-19 policies, abortion drugs, environmental regulations, student loan forgiveness and a ban on transgender soldiers. In other words, this tool has no particular political or ideological valence, and the same people might welcome or condemn its use, depending on which party happens to be in power.

Six justices concluded that universal injunctions are not within the powers granted by the relevant statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789. "The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation's history," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority. "Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority."

The decision leaves open several other options that could have an impact similar to universal injunctions. The Administrative Procedure Act, for example, explicitly authorizes federal courts to "set aside" agency actions when they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

Another alternative is illustrated by one of the cases that resulted in the Supreme Court's stay: When states challenge a federal policy on behalf of their residents, they can argue that adequate relief requires a nationwide injunction. Finally, representative plaintiffs can bring class action lawsuits on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, assuming they can meet the tests established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The three justices who dissented from the Supreme Court's decision argued that universal injunctions are historically validated and appropriate in at least some cases. In particular, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, such remedies should be available when a law or executive action is plainly unconstitutional.

Trump's order pretty clearly falls into that category. It contradicts centuries of legal tradition, the original understanding of the 14th Amendment, 127 years of Supreme Court precedent, and the consistent positions of federal officials in every branch of government.

Tellingly, the Trump administration, despite the president's bluster about "the Birthright Citizenship Hoax," did not challenge the injunctions against his order insofar as they apply to the plaintiffs in those cases. That would have entailed defending the constitutionality of Trump's edict -- a fight he cannot win.

========

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @jacobsullum. To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

----

Copyright 2025 Creators Syndicate, Inc.