In a major decision Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a win for President Donald Trump—one that strengthens the authority of the executive branch and significantly limits the power of lower courts to block presidential orders.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who once publicly challenged Trump, assigned the majority opinion to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Together, they led the conservative bloc in a 6-3 ruling that dissolved a key judicial check on the presidency—nationwide injunctions issued by district courts.
The ruling came as Trump seeks to end birthright citizenship, aiming to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders. The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional question but ruled that lower courts exceeded their authority in halting enforcement across the country.
Barrett’s Pivotal Role
Barrett, Trump’s third appointee to the Court, authored the opinion in Trump v. CASA, a rare move for the Court’s most junior conservative. Her assignment signaled Roberts’ confidence in her and the Court’s growing consensus behind a stronger executive branch.
In her written opinion, Barrett rejected the idea that federal judges can act as national referees on executive policy:
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies,” she wrote, calling sweeping injunctions “freewheeling” and beyond judicial authority.
Barrett emphasized that the Constitution never envisioned a single district judge halting federal policies nationwide. As she calmly read her decision from the bench, her colleagues largely remained impassive.
Sotomayor’s Scathing Dissent
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, seated just feet from Barrett, pushed back with force. Delivering a rare oral dissent, she warned the majority’s decision “kneecaps the judiciary’s authority” and enables presidential overreach.
Sotomayor referenced the 1857 Dred Scott decision and the post-Civil War 14th Amendment that affirmed birthright citizenship, arguing Trump’s executive order strikes at a fundamental constitutional right.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” she declared.
She was joined in dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who have increasingly criticized the Court’s deference to Trump during his second term.
A Pattern of Support for Trump
Friday’s ruling fits a broader pattern. Since Trump’s return to the White House, the Court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with his administration. That includes allowing the expedited deportation of migrants, upholding state bans on gender-affirming care for minors, and supporting religious objections to LGBTQ-themed education.
On Friday, the Court also ruled 6-3 in favor of religious parents seeking to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ-inclusive books in public schools—a decision consistent with Trump’s cultural agenda.
Trump, celebrating the birthright citizenship decision, publicly thanked each justice in the majority by name during a press conference:
“Justice Barrett wrote a brilliant opinion. I want to thank her, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas—great people,” he said.
Ironically, Trump had previously criticized Barrett behind closed doors for not always supporting his positions.
Shifting Tone from Roberts and Barrett
Both Roberts and Barrett had shown earlier signs of skepticism toward Trump. Roberts once rebuked him for attacking judges, and Barrett questioned whether Trump’s team would respect court rulings during oral arguments in May.
“You would respect the opinions and judgment of the Supreme Court?” she asked Solicitor General John Sauer. “You’re not hedging at all with respect to the precedent of this court?”
“That is correct,” Sauer replied.
But despite such moments of concern, the Court’s conservative wing appears aligned with Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority.
Broader Implications
This ruling follows last year’s landmark decision granting presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts—another case that redefined executive power.
With this latest decision, lower courts will find it harder to impose nationwide freezes on controversial policies. Instead, challenges will have to move more slowly through the appellate system—giving presidents more time to implement sweeping changes.
As Justice Sotomayor put it in her dissent:
“Each time this Court rewards noncompliance, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
With the conservative bloc firmly in control and a wave of Trump administration policies moving through the courts, the judiciary appears poised to grant this president—and future ones—more freedom than ever before to act without immediate checks.
