Fact Check: "Justice Barrett declares nationwide injunctions unconstitutional, a historical first."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, limited the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated that such injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts" (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting ...). The ruling specifically addressed the context of President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship, but did not directly declare nationwide injunctions unconstitutional. Instead, it emphasized that injunctions must be tailored to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs involved (NPR).
The Court's decision indicates a shift in how federal courts can respond to executive actions, potentially curtailing the use of broad, universal injunctions that have become more common in recent years due to legislative gridlock (The Atlantic). This ruling has sparked significant debate among legal scholars regarding its implications for the balance of power among the branches of government and the role of the judiciary in checking executive authority.
Analysis
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While the Supreme Court did impose restrictions on the issuance of such injunctions, it did not outright declare them unconstitutional. Instead, the ruling suggests that federal courts must ensure that any injunctions they issue are not broader than necessary to provide relief to the specific plaintiffs involved (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting ..., NPR).
Critics of the ruling, including some legal scholars, argue that it represents a significant blow to judicial oversight of executive power, potentially leading to an "unaccountable federal executive" (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting ...). They contend that the decision reflects a broader trend of the Supreme Court favoring executive authority over judicial checks, particularly in politically charged cases (The Atlantic).
On the other hand, proponents of the ruling may argue that it restores a necessary balance between the branches of government by limiting the scope of judicial power. The majority opinion does not categorically reject the use of nationwide injunctions but rather calls for a more restrained approach (NPR, BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting ...).
Conclusion
The verdict is Partially True. Justice Barrett did not declare nationwide injunctions unconstitutional in a definitive sense; rather, the Supreme Court's ruling limits their application and suggests that they must be narrowly tailored. This nuanced position reflects ongoing tensions in the interpretation of judicial authority and executive power, highlighting the complexities of constitutional law in contemporary governance.
