Fact Check: Supreme Court's 6-3 Ruling Empowers Trump, Limiting Judicial Checks on Presidential Power
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in a 6-3 decision that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions against presidential actions. This ruling is seen as a major victory for President Donald Trump, as it effectively reduces judicial checks on executive power. The case involved Trump's executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to certain children born to undocumented immigrants, which had faced multiple nationwide injunctions from lower courts (NPR, NY Times).
The Supreme Court's decision allows for the enforcement of such executive orders in states that have not challenged them, unless individual plaintiffs bring lawsuits against the administration (Reuters). This ruling is part of a broader trend where the judicial branch's ability to act as a check on presidential power has been increasingly eroded, particularly during Trump's presidency (NY Times).
Analysis
The ruling's implications are profound, as it not only benefits Trump but also sets a precedent that could empower future presidents. By limiting the scope of universal injunctions, the Supreme Court has made it more challenging for lower courts to intervene in executive actions deemed illegal. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that this ruling poses a "grave attack on the American system of law," suggesting that it endangers constitutional rights for individuals who are not directly involved in lawsuits (NPR).
While the majority opinion, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized the need for procedural limits in class-action lawsuits to circumvent this ruling, the dissenters raised concerns about the potential for executive overreach without judicial oversight (NY Times). The ruling reflects a broader ideological divide within the court, with all six justices supporting the decision being Republican appointees, while the dissent came from the three Democratic appointees (NPR).
The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is high, as they include major news outlets like NPR, The New York Times, and Reuters, which are known for their journalistic integrity and fact-checking processes. However, it is important to note that the framing of the ruling can vary between sources, with some emphasizing the potential for executive overreach while others focus on the legal reasoning behind the decision.
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling empowers Trump and limits judicial checks on presidential power is True. The ruling indeed reduces the capacity of federal judges to issue universal injunctions, thereby enhancing the executive branch's authority and diminishing the judiciary's role as a check on presidential actions. This decision reflects a significant shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government, particularly in the context of Trump's presidency.
