Amy Coney Barrett delivered the devastating blow that left-wing judges never saw coming.
The 6-3 decision sent shockwaves through the legal establishment.
And the Supreme Court just crushed rogue judges who tried to destroy Trump’s agenda with this one brutal ruling.
Activist judges get their wings clipped
The Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to the activist judges who have been weaponizing the federal court system against President Donald Trump’s agenda.
In a sweeping 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion that severely restricts the power of individual federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies.
The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, rules nationwide injunctions exceed the power of individual federal court judges according to Glenn Greenwald’s breaking report on the decision.
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1938600692282958133“>https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1938600692282958133
Barrett’s majority opinion delivered the brutal truth that left-wing legal activists have been dreading to hear.
"The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that completely destroys the legal foundation these rogue judges have been standing on.
The case arose from President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which was blocked by three different federal judges who issued sweeping nationwide injunctions preventing the administration from implementing the policy anywhere in the country.
The Deep State’s favorite weapon gets neutralized
For years, the Deep State and their allies in the legal establishment have used nationwide injunctions as their weapon of choice to sabotage conservative presidents.
The Justice Department told the court that sweeping orders thwarting the president’s agenda have "reached epidemic proportions," with 39 nationwide injunctions issued on a variety of policies since Trump returned to office.
This judicial tyranny has allowed a single unelected federal judge sitting anywhere in the country to effectively veto presidential policies with nationwide impact.
Justice Samuel Alito exposed the core problem during oral arguments when he warned that "all Article 3 judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’"
The numbers tell the devastating story of how out of control these activist judges became.
The Congressional Research Service in March issued a report saying 86 nationwide injunctions were issued during the first Trump administration and 28 under former President Joe Biden.
But the real explosion happened when Trump returned to office.
CRS said 17 such injunctions were issued from the time Trump took office in January through the closing days of March – an unprecedented assault on executive authority.
Liberal justices throw a tantrum
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – predictably threw a tantrum in their dissent.
Sotomayor, Kagan and KBJ dissent from Barrett’s majority opinion that restored constitutional balance to the federal court system.
During oral arguments, the liberal justices desperately tried to defend the indefensible practice of allowing single judges to override presidential authority.
"The president is violating not just one, but in my count, four established Supreme Court precedents," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Sauer. "And you are claiming that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive, universally, from violating those holdings."
But Justice Sotomayor’s argument completely missed the point.
The issue was never whether courts can check presidential power – it’s whether a single unelected judge should have the authority to impose their will on the entire nation.
What this means for Trump’s agenda
This landmark ruling represents a massive victory for President Trump and future conservative presidents who won’t have to worry about forum-shopping liberals finding the most activist judge in the country to block their policies.
The conservative majority ruled that federal judges can no longer impose their will on the entire country through sweeping injunctions that go beyond the specific parties in their courtrooms.
Under the new ruling, activist judges will be limited to providing relief only to the actual plaintiffs who filed lawsuits, forcing liberal groups to jump through the much higher legal hurdles required for class-action cases if they want broader impact.
The Supreme Court did not rule Friday on the underlying constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, but delivered a massive procedural victory that will make it much harder for liberal activists to block conservative policies in the future.
Instead of being able to get one friendly judge to block a policy nationwide, challengers will now have to pursue more traditional legal remedies like class-action lawsuits that require much higher legal standards.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to this alternative during oral arguments, suggesting that class-action lawsuits would suffice for allowing the challengers to Trump’s executive order to get broad relief from the courts.
But class-action lawsuits are much harder to obtain and require plaintiffs to actually meet rigorous legal standards – something the activist legal establishment has avoided by judge shopping for nationwide injunctions.
The end of judicial tyranny
This Supreme Court decision marks the end of an era of judicial tyranny that has plagued American politics for decades.
Courts have increasingly taken the former view, deploying nationwide injunctions to stop executive actions ranging from Barack Obama’s DAPA to Donald Trump’s first-term travel ban to Joe Biden’s student-loan jubilee to countless initiatives in the second Trump administration.
The abuse became so egregious that several justices have expressed skepticism of these maneuvers, notably Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Justice Clarence Thomas had been leading the charge against these judicial power grabs for years.
When lower courts blocked Trump in his first term from barring travel to the United States for foreigners from mostly Muslim nations, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, called nationwide injunctions "legally and historically dubious."
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the criticism, arguing that universal injunctions "circumvent normal judicial processes and ‘tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions’ at all levels."
Barrett delivers the crushing blow
Justice Amy Coney Barrett proved once again why President Trump’s Supreme Court appointments were so crucial for constitutional governance.
Her majority opinion systematically demolished every argument the liberal legal establishment had for preserving these judicial power grabs.
Barrett’s reasoning was devastating in its simplicity – for most of American history, individual judges never had the power to override presidential policies nationwide, so there’s no constitutional basis for allowing it now.
This logic completely eviscerates the liberal argument that nationwide injunctions are necessary to provide adequate relief to plaintiffs.
Barrett’s majority opinion makes clear that individual plaintiffs can get complete relief without needing to impose their preferred outcome on the entire nation.
But the Supreme Court left one important door open that could still cause problems for Trump’s agenda.
The majority opinion suggests that state governments might still have the power to obtain sweeping nationwide relief when they file lawsuits, though Barrett deliberately left this question unanswered for future cases.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has finally restored the proper constitutional balance between the branches of government.
No longer will unelected federal judges be able to act as super-legislators imposing their personal policy preferences on the entire country.
President Trump can now implement his America First agenda without worrying about some activist judge in Seattle or San Francisco trying to block policies that benefit the American people.
This is what winning looks like.
