JUNE 30, 2025 |

Photo – Whitehouse – Bigfoot99 file photo

In a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Friday the justices ruled that lower courts around the country cannot issue nationwide injunctions. Sweeping decisions by lower courts, the High Court ruled, is an abuse of judicial power.

The ruling came in the controversial cases of “birthright citizenship.”

The decision in Trump v. Casa vindicated the Department of Justice (DOJ) strategy of arguing against the idea of nationwide injunctions, rather than addressing the underlying substantive issue in the case.

The dispute over whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees citizenship upon birth. Conservatives argue that “birthright citizenship” is abused by illegal migrants to make their children into U.S. citizens, who can later sponsor the legal immigration of the rest of their families. They also argue that no other nation has birthright citizenship, and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend to create it.

U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Senate Majority Whip, issued a statement Friday heralding the Supreme Court decision that limits nationwide injunctions.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court’s conservative majority found: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

Justice Barrett added, “Universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history. Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.”

Wyoming’s senior U.S. Senator John Barrasso celebrated Friday’s decision. In a statement following the decision, Senator Barrasso wrote, ““Unelected liberal judges have no right to rule the country. It isn’t checks and balances. It is purely partisan politics – and it is wrong. Today’s Supreme Court decision reins in radical judges that Senate Democrats jammed onto the federal bench over the past four years. It is a win for the rule of law and common sense. Nationwide injunctions issued by partisan, unelected district court judges is a new phenomenon. It has been abused by elitist extremists wanting to overrule the will of the American people. The Supreme Court got it right by putting an end to this abuse.”

The High Court’s decision on Friday appears to down of President Trump on the fundamental issue over which branch of government has more power, the Presidency or the Judiciary.

In a judicial tell, the High Court, Justice Barrett called out Justice Ketanji Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, who wrote the minority opinion.  Barrett wrote, “Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”

Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, criticized the decision, arguing that it posed an existential threat to the rule of law and allowed the Executive to violate the Constitution.

President Trump hailed the decision as a win for democracy by ending the ability of liberal judges to insert their own values over the American people.

Audio Player

For now, the Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of lower courts to block the will of the President using nationwide injunctions.

Previous articleCity of Rawlins Working Out Logistics for Golf Simulator
Next articleHome School Ban Reversed by CCSD#1 Board Members