SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Power to Block Trump’s Executive Orders
June 30th, 2025
Anya Gordeev
Sign up for our newly launched weekly newsletter here.
June 30th, 2025
Anya Gordeev
On Friday, June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the authority of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against presidential policies, giving Trump the “ultimate win.” The 6-3 decision displayed a stark shift in the balance of power between the judicial, legislative and executive branches, which, in the long run, will make it harder for courts to block policies across the nation.
The ruling was issued in a legal case focused on one of Trump’s executive orders. Specifically, the executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or visa holders in the U.S. This executive order challenges more than a century of legal precedent, potentially posing a constitutional threat. This is because, while the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., Trump argues that the amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children born to parents without permanent legal status.
Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship is part of his administration's broader effort to restrict immigration. He argues that granting automatic citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants creates a “magnet” that encourages illegal immigration and "birth tourism." However, public opinion on the issue remains largely opposed; a recent Reuters poll finds that 52% of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship, while only 24% support it. Among Republicans, support is higher, with 43% in favor, compared to just 5% of Democrats.
Despite Trump’s efforts, Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington had previously halted the policy, deeming it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Additionally, The Supreme Court’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions received harsh criticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who called it a “travesty for the rule of law” and warned that it could allow unconstitutional policies to move forward unchecked. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and other liberal justices also voiced concerns, stating that the decision will weaken the courts’ ability to stop harmful executive actions before they spread, possibly setting a dangerous precendent for the nation.
Extemp Analysis By: Ty Tan
Question: What precedent does the SCOTUS ruling against the power of federal court to dismiss executive orders set for freedom?
Analysis:
When initially looking at this question, its important to be clear in defining your definition of freedom, and clearly defining what the SCOTUS ruling was. The article by Anya does a really good job doing this, so the background of your speech should be concise in explaining the ruling, and then setting up the potentiality of a change in precedent.
For your AGD, I would recommend a heart story, as the contemporary nature of the SCOTUS ruling can easily apply to birthright citizenship stories. A well placed and respectful joke could also work.
For your thesis, I would be careful to keep your thesis broad enough for your three points. For example:
Answer: Negative Precedent because of x
For each of your points, I see two ways of going about things. One way is by picking different cases for each point, allowing for tighter analysis of expectation verification. However, I think a better way of splitting your points could be by how the SCOTUS ruling sets a negative precedent, so looking more broadly and sprinkling more examples. Some examples points could be:
P1: Demonstrating Unchecked Executive Power
P2: Eroding Judicial Checks
P3: Delaying Relief for Constitutional Violations
With judicial topics, its easy for your points to overlap, so be careful here to make sure they all have good solvency and that your points don’t bleed! Use unique examples and specific mechanisms to do this!
Read more here: