Fact Check: "Justice Barrett declares nationwide injunctions unconstitutional, marking a legal revolution."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a ruling led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, limited the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders. The decision was made in the context of a case involving President Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship. Justice Barrett stated that nationwide injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts” (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...). The ruling was a 6-3 decision, reflecting ideological divisions within the court, and it did not directly address the constitutionality of the executive order itself, leaving that question for future consideration (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...).
The court's majority opinion emphasized that lower courts should ensure that any injunctions they impose are “narrowly tailored” to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs with standing (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...). This decision has been interpreted as a significant shift in judicial power, potentially curtailing the ability of courts to act against executive actions on a broad scale.
Analysis
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. While the ruling does impose significant restrictions on the issuance of nationwide injunctions, it stops short of outright declaring them unconstitutional. Instead, the court's opinion suggests that such injunctions may exceed the authority granted to federal courts, indicating a desire to limit their use rather than abolish them entirely (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...).
Critics of the ruling, including legal scholars, argue that this decision represents a major shift in the balance of power between the branches of government, potentially allowing for unchecked executive power (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, characterized the ruling as an “existential threat to the rule of law” (BU Legal Scholars Assess Supreme Court Ruling Limiting...). This reflects a broader concern that the ruling may undermine the judiciary's role as a check on executive authority.
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is high, as they include legal experts and direct references to the Supreme Court's ruling. However, the interpretation of the ruling's implications varies among scholars, indicating a complex legal landscape that warrants careful consideration.
Conclusion
The claim that Justice Barrett declared nationwide injunctions unconstitutional is partially true. The Supreme Court's ruling indeed restricts the use of such injunctions, suggesting they may exceed judicial authority, but it does not categorically declare them unconstitutional. This nuanced position indicates a significant shift in judicial practice, but it stops short of a full legal revolution as suggested by the claim.
