In a sharply worded 22-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the Court’s Friday decision to restrict the reach of nationwide injunctions poses “an existential threat to the rule of law.” The ruling, passed 6–3 by the Court’s conservative majority, limits lower courts to issuing injunctions that only apply to the plaintiffs in a given case—potentially clearing the way for former President Donald Trump to advance controversial executive actions like ending birthright citizenship.
Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) praised the decision, calling it a major victory for judicial restraint. Speaking to Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, Kennedy said he was “proud” of the ruling and dismissed nationwide injunctions as a “made-up” judicial tool lacking any basis in law or precedent.
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” Kennedy said. “There’s no basis in statute. No basis in Supreme Court precedent. No basis in English common law.”
Taking a jab at Jackson’s dissent, Kennedy added, “She’s mad as a bag of cats, and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
Jackson’s Dissent: A Warning Against Executive Overreach
Justice Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, issued a fierce rebuke of the ruling, accusing the Court of giving the Executive Branch a blank check to violate the Constitution—so long as the affected individuals haven’t yet filed lawsuits.
“The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote.
She argued that the Trump administration’s effort to “vanquish” nationwide injunctions was “at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The consolidated cases before the Court centered on Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions to stop enforcement of the order. However, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump’s order itself—only on whether lower courts have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
A Shift with Broad Implications
Nationwide injunctions have long been used by federal judges to halt executive actions across the country. Past examples include injunctions blocking President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and President Obama’s guidance on bathroom access for transgender students.
In her dissent, Jackson warned that ending this practice undermines the courts’ ability to hold the Executive Branch accountable when it violates the Constitution.
“When the Government says, ‘do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally,’ what it is actually saying is, ‘we want to keep doing something a court has already found to be unconstitutional—please let us,’” Jackson wrote. “That is some solicitation.”
She emphasized that no one is above the law—not even the President—and that courts must retain the power to enforce the Constitution broadly, not just for individuals who manage to sue in time.
“To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness,” she said, “where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”
As the ruling reshapes how courts can respond to executive actions, it opens the door for policies to remain in effect across most of the country—even after being deemed unconstitutional—unless and until separate lawsuits are filed in each jurisdiction. Critics like Jackson say that’s a dangerous precedent. Supporters like Kennedy see it as a necessary check on judicial overreach.
Either way, the decision marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the courts and the presidency—one likely to reverberate through future legal and political battles.
