Fact Check: Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling empowers Trump to bypass nationwide injunctions.

Fact Check: Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling empowers Trump to bypass nationwide injunctions

What We Know

On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc., which significantly limited the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions. This decision was characterized as a major victory for President Trump, as it effectively allows his administration to proceed with policies that had previously been blocked by lower court rulings. The ruling specifically addressed the use of "universal injunctions," which had been employed by district courts to prevent the enforcement of executive orders across the entire country (source-1, source-2).

The White House hailed the decision as a restoration of the separation of powers, arguing that it prevents "rogue, activist judges" from undermining the executive branch's authority (source-2). Legal analysts noted that this ruling would allow the Trump administration to implement policies more swiftly without the fear of nationwide judicial blocks (source-3, source-4).

Analysis

The Supreme Court's ruling does not grant President Trump the ability to "bypass" nationwide injunctions in a literal sense; rather, it limits the circumstances under which such injunctions can be issued. The decision reflects a significant shift in judicial power dynamics, particularly regarding the ability of lower courts to impose broad restrictions on executive actions. Critics of the ruling argue that it undermines judicial checks on executive power, potentially allowing for unchecked presidential authority (source-5, source-7).

The sources cited include statements from both legal experts and government officials, indicating a consensus among supporters of the ruling that it represents a necessary correction to judicial overreach. However, the framing of the decision as a "victory" for Trump may reflect a partisan perspective, as opponents view it as a potential erosion of judicial independence (source-3, source-4).

Conclusion

The claim that the Supreme Court's ruling empowers Trump to bypass nationwide injunctions is Partially True. While the ruling does limit the ability of lower courts to issue such injunctions, it does not provide Trump with an outright ability to ignore judicial decisions. Instead, it alters the landscape of judicial authority, potentially allowing for more executive action without the threat of nationwide judicial intervention. This nuanced understanding is crucial for accurately interpreting the implications of the ruling.

Fact Check: Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling empowers Trump to bypass nationwide injunctions.