Fact Check: The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide.

Fact Check: The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide.

Published July 3, 2025
VERDICT
True

# Fact Check: "The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide." ## What We Know The claim that the Supreme Court can iss...

Fact Check: "The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide."

What We Know

The claim that the Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide is supported by recent judicial decisions regarding universal injunctions. Universal injunctions, also known as nationwide injunctions, are court orders that prevent the government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy against anyone, not just the plaintiffs involved in the case. The Supreme Court has recently limited the use of these injunctions, which had allowed lower federal courts to block executive actions across the country (NPR, New York Times).

In a notable case concerning President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled that the power of federal courts to issue such nationwide blocks likely exceeds the authority granted to them by Congress (NPR). This ruling indicates that while the Supreme Court can indeed issue rulings that have nationwide implications, it is also actively shaping the scope of that power.

Analysis

The Supreme Court's recent decisions illustrate its significant role in influencing federal policies through its rulings. By limiting the ability of lower courts to issue universal injunctions, the Court is effectively changing how federal policies can be challenged and blocked. This shift is seen as a way to reduce the power of individual judges to halt presidential actions that affect the entire country (New York Times, National Law Review).

Experts have noted that this ruling could lead to a decrease in the federal courts' ability to act as a check on the executive branch, which has been a critical function of the judiciary (PBS). The implications of this decision are profound, as it may alter how future cases are litigated and how federal policies are implemented or challenged.

The sources used for this analysis are credible, coming from established news organizations and legal reviews. They provide a balanced view of the implications of the Supreme Court's rulings, highlighting both the potential benefits and drawbacks of limiting universal injunctions.

Conclusion

The verdict on the claim that "The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide" is True. The Supreme Court has the authority to issue rulings that can have nationwide effects, particularly through its decisions on the use of universal injunctions. While the Court has recently limited the scope of these injunctions, its rulings still hold significant power over federal policies and actions.

Sources

  1. The Supreme Court has limited universal injunctions. What does it mean ...
  2. What Are Nationwide Injunctions? How the Supreme Court Ruling Could ...
  3. U.S. Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunction Authority
  4. Supreme Court Restricts Nationwide Injunctions: Implications for Union ...
  5. How the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions affects ... - PBS

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Jul 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

She is now trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage, likened to Roe v. Wade.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She is now trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage, likened to Roe v. Wade.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Kim Davis was jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She is now trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage, likened to Roe v. Wade.

Aug 18, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: The U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The U.S. Supreme Court can issue orders affecting immigration cases.
True

Fact Check: The U.S. Supreme Court can issue orders affecting immigration cases.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The U.S. Supreme Court can issue orders affecting immigration cases.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Supreme Court's rulings create an existential threat to the rule of law.
Unverified

Fact Check: The Supreme Court's rulings create an existential threat to the rule of law.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Supreme Court's rulings create an existential threat to the rule of law.

Jul 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions is a tectonic shift for the judiciary.
Partially True

Fact Check: The Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions is a tectonic shift for the judiciary.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions is a tectonic shift for the judiciary.

Jul 6, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Supreme Court can issue rulings that affect federal policies nationwide. | TruthOrFake Blog