Fact Check: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to limit injunctions against Trump's immigration policies.

Fact Check: Supreme Court Rules 6-3 to Limit Injunctions Against Trump's Immigration Policies

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case concerning President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which aimed to restrict automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The Court ruled 6-3 to limit the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against such policies (NPR, Reuters). The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts" (NPR). This ruling allows for the enforcement of Trump's immigration policies, albeit with some limitations, as the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself (Washington Post).

Analysis

The claim that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit injunctions against Trump's immigration policies is partially true. The ruling indeed occurred along ideological lines, with the conservative justices siding with the Trump administration to restrict the issuance of universal injunctions (NPR, Reuters). However, it is crucial to note that the Court did not fully endorse Trump's immigration policies; rather, it focused on the procedural aspect of whether lower courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The decision emphasized that such injunctions should not exceed what is necessary to provide relief to the plaintiffs involved (NPR, Washington Post).

The dissenting opinion, voiced by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision as a disregard for established principles of equity and the historical context of injunctive relief (NPR). This dissent highlights the contentious nature of the ruling and suggests that while the Trump administration may view this as a victory, the implications for judicial authority and the balance of powers remain complex and debated.

The sources cited are credible, with NPR and Reuters being well-established news organizations known for their journalistic integrity. The Supreme Court's official opinion is also a primary source that provides direct insight into the Court's reasoning (24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc.).

Conclusion

The verdict is Partially True. While the Supreme Court did rule 6-3 to limit the issuance of nationwide injunctions against Trump's immigration policies, the ruling did not fully endorse those policies nor did it resolve the underlying constitutional questions regarding birthright citizenship. Instead, it primarily addressed the procedural authority of federal courts in issuing such injunctions.

Fact Check: Supreme Court rules 6-3 to limit injunctions against Trump's immigration policies.