Fact Check: "Justice Barrett declares nationwide injunctions unconstitutional, marking a historic legal shift."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that significantly limits the use of nationwide injunctions, a type of court order that prevents the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against everyone, not just the parties involved in a specific case. The ruling was a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which stated that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress (Northeastern, NPR).
The case at hand involved challenges to President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship, which sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who were unlawfully present or on temporary visas. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself but focused on the procedural issue of whether lower courts could issue nationwide injunctions (NPR, The Atlantic).
Justice Barrett's majority opinion emphasized that federal courts should resolve cases and controversies specifically related to the parties involved, rather than exerting general oversight over the executive branch (Northeastern). This ruling has been described as a potential shift in judicial practice, as it restricts the ability of courts to provide broad relief against government actions (Democracy Docket).
Analysis
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While the ruling does not explicitly declare such injunctions unconstitutional, it does limit their application significantly. The majority opinion suggests that federal judges should not issue universal injunctions that apply broadly beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. This indicates a shift in how courts may handle cases involving executive actions, potentially leading to a more restrictive approach to judicial remedies (NPR, The Atlantic).
Critics of the ruling, including the dissenting justices, argue that this decision could undermine the rule of law by allowing the executive branch to implement potentially unconstitutional policies without immediate judicial checks (Northeastern). The dissenting justices expressed concerns that limiting the scope of injunctions could lead to a situation where unlawful government actions go unchecked until individual lawsuits are filed, which could be impractical for many citizens (NPR, Democracy Docket).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with NPR and Northeastern University being reputable news and educational institutions, respectively. The Atlantic is also a well-respected publication known for in-depth analysis. However, the framing of the ruling as a "historic legal shift" may be seen as subjective and could reflect the opinions of those interpreting the implications of the decision rather than an objective legal consensus.
Conclusion
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While the ruling does not outright declare such injunctions unconstitutional, it imposes significant limitations on their use, marking a notable shift in judicial practice regarding the scope of federal court authority. This decision could have far-reaching implications for how courts address executive actions in the future, but it does not represent a blanket declaration of unconstitutionality.
