06/29/2025 / By Willow Tohi
In a significant 6-3 ruling issued on June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the authority of federal judges to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions without first certifying a class of affected parties. The decision marked a major victory for the Trump administration and conservative legal priorities, upholding restrictions on birthright citizenship for non-immigrant children and weakening challenges to policies limiting access to LGBTQ+-inclusive school materials.
The conservative majority, led by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, argued that lower courts overstepped their bounds by halting sweeping executive actions without meeting proper legal standards. The dissenting justices, along with Democratic-led states and liberal legal advocates, criticized the ruling for exacerbating judicial-executive tensions and narrowing avenues to contest controversial federal policies. The ruling follows years of ideological battles over executive power and federal judiciary authority, positioning President Trump’s administration to advance its agenda with fewer courtroom constraints while reshaping precedents on presidential authority. The cases, stemming from challenges to Trump’s executive orders in lower courts, now set a narrower framework for how judicial rulings can affect nationwide policy implementation moving forward.
The court upheld Trump’s 2025 executive order requiring at least one parent to have legal residency for children born in the U.S. to qualify for birthright citizenship. A 6-3 decision invalidated broader injunctions blocking the policy, which will now apply outside the 22 states where related lawsuits were filed.
Key points:
The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of religious parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged school policies barring opt-outs for young-student materials featuring LGBTQ+ themes. The decision requires courts to grant parental injunctions protecting their religious exercise and could reshape how schools nationwide accommodate religious objections.
Key quotes:
Nationwide injunctions surged under past administrations, allowing single judges or states to override federal policies. For instance, Biden-era challenges to abortion-related funding or environmental rules triggered similar blowback. By narrowing their applicability, the Court shifts power to the legislative and executive branches, emphasizing textualist interpretations of Article III judicial authority—one plaintiff, one remedy.
The rulings reflect a stark judicial alignment with Trump’s agenda, reinforcing executive authority while prioritizing parental and religious liberty. While conservatives celebrate these as victories against activist judges, critics warn of escalating judicial-executive conflicts and diminished protections for immigrants and marginalized groups. The decisions mark a pivotal moment in constitutional governance, where federal policies will face fewer federal blocks—reshaping law, politics and education for years to come.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
activist judges, big government, birthright citizenship, judicial overreach, lgbtq, nationwide injuctions, progress, religious rights, scotus, Supreme Court, Trump
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 WHITE HOUSE NEWS