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

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

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in a case concerning President Trump's executive orders, specifically regarding the issuance of nationwide injunctions by federal judges. The decision was made with a 6-3 majority, which effectively limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions that block executive actions across the country. This ruling is seen as a victory for the Trump administration, allowing for greater flexibility in implementing its policies (NPR, Washington Post).

The case arose from challenges to an executive order related to birthright citizenship, where multiple federal judges had issued universal injunctions against the order. The Supreme Court's ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of the executive order itself but focused on the authority of federal courts to issue such broad injunctions (NPR, CBS News). The conservative majority of the Court expressed that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress (NPR).

Analysis

The claim that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to limit nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies is partially true. The ruling indeed occurred, and it specifically targeted the use of universal injunctions, which have been increasingly utilized in recent years to challenge executive actions. The decision was framed as a response to the growing trend of federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions, which the Court's conservative majority deemed problematic (NPR, Washington Post).

However, while the ruling is significant, it is essential to note that it does not entirely eliminate the possibility of nationwide injunctions. Instead, it places restrictions on their use, particularly in the context of executive orders. The ruling allows for more discretion among federal judges, which could lead to varied interpretations and applications of injunctions in future cases (NPR, CBS News).

The sources cited are credible, with NPR and the Washington Post being well-respected news organizations known for their journalistic integrity. The Supreme Court's official opinion document also provides a primary source for the ruling (24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc.). However, the framing of the ruling as a blanket limitation on all nationwide injunctions could mislead readers into thinking that such injunctions are now entirely prohibited, which is not the case.

Conclusion

The verdict on the claim is Partially True. While the Supreme Court did rule 6-3 to limit the use of nationwide injunctions, particularly in the context of Trump’s policies, it did not completely eliminate their use. The ruling emphasizes the need for a more restrained approach to issuing universal injunctions but does not categorically ban them. Therefore, the claim captures a significant aspect of the ruling but oversimplifies the implications of the Court's decision.

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