by Guy Page
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today, June 27, that federal courts likely lack the authority to issue “universal injunctions”—sweeping orders that block government policies against everyone, not just the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.
The landmark decision came in a case involving challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which sought to redefine American citizenship based on parents’ immigration status.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts” through the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Judge Clarence Thomas concurred: ‘The Court today holds that federal courts may not issue so-called universal injunctions. I agree and join in full. As the Court explains, the Judiciary Act of 1789—the statute that “‘authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies’”—does not permit universal injunctions. It authorizes only those remedies traditionally available in equity, and there is no historical tradition allowing courts to provide “relief that extend[s] beyond the parties.’’
Dissenting Voices – Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a strong dissent, asserting that the Executive Order is “patently unconstitutional.” She emphasized that the lower courts correctly determined that universal injunctions were “necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs” in these cases, especially the States facing financial injuries and administrative burdens due to the cross-border movement of children.