The Supreme Court of the United States in a 6–3 decision held that federal district courts generally cannot issue nationwide (or “universal”) injunctions blocking federal policies from being enforced across the whole country. The case arose when multiple lower courts had blocked Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, issuing nationwide injunctions while the order’s legality was litigated.

According to the majority opinion (written by Amy Coney Barrett), such sweeping injunctions exceed the equitable jurisdiction Congress granted to district courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Court emphasized that injunctive relief must be tailored to the actual parties in the case rather than automatically applying to all persons affected nationwide — except in narrow circumstances (e.g., properly‑certified class actions or where the injunction is necessary to give complete relief to the parties).

The decision will have far‑reaching consequences. Legal experts note that challenges to executive orders, administrative regulations (in areas like immigration, environment, healthcare, financial regulation) will now more often proceed on a piecemeal, jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction basis rather than via sweeping nationwide blocks. In effect, the decision strengthens the executive‑branch’s ability to enforce nationwide policy while curbing a major tool previously used by challengers.

In short, this ruling represents a significant shift in the balance of power: it limits the ability of lower‑court judges to halt federal policies across the country, and forces those who oppose such policies to adapt to more complex litigation strategies. While the Court did not rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself, the procedural change alone marks a pivotal moment for how federal policy is contested in the courts.