Fact Check: "Justice Barrett declares nationwide injunctions unconstitutional, marking a historic ruling."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled on the limitations of federal district court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, stating that such injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts" (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting Nationwide...). The ruling was part of a case involving President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which the court did not directly address in terms of constitutionality but indicated that nationwide injunctions should be more narrowly tailored to provide relief only to those plaintiffs with standing (Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions...).
Analysis
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While she did assert that the authority to issue such injunctions is likely beyond what Congress intended to grant, she did not outright declare them unconstitutional. Instead, her opinion emphasized that lower courts should ensure any injunctions they impose align with principles of equity and are not broader than necessary for the relief of the plaintiffs involved (PDF Supreme Court of The United States).
The ruling reflects a significant shift in the judicial landscape regarding the scope of federal court powers, particularly in the context of executive actions. Critics, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that this decision poses a threat to the rule of law by allowing the executive branch to act without sufficient checks from the judiciary (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting Nationwide...).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with the Supreme Court's official opinion being a primary document, and the Boston University article providing expert legal analysis. However, the New York Times article, while reputable, may carry some bias in its framing of the ruling's implications (Supreme Court Limits Judges' Ability to Issue Nationwide Injunctions, a...).
Conclusion
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While her opinion indicates a significant limitation on the use of such injunctions, it stops short of a definitive constitutional declaration. The ruling sets a precedent that could reshape how federal courts interact with executive actions, but it does not eliminate the possibility of nationwide injunctions entirely.
