;)
In a lively session on May 15, 2025, filled with justices鈥 questions that at times interrupted the attorneys appearing before them, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case stemming from President Donald Trump鈥檚 , the provision in the Constitution鈥檚 14th Amendment that says all children born in the United States are granted citizenship.
While the underlying lawsuit involves birthright citizenship, the immediate question before the court was about a legal tool called a 鈥渘ationwide preliminary injunction.鈥 This allows a single federal judge to temporarily halt presidential policies across the entire country 鈥 even before fully considering whether those policies are constitutional.
Three stopped the president鈥檚 attempt to deny birthright citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States. It was the Trump administration鈥檚 appeal of those injunctions that was argued before the justices on May 15, with the administration asserting that 鈥渦niversal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch鈥檚 ability to carry out its functions,鈥 and that it鈥檚 unconstitutional for federal judges to issue them.
The justices also grappled with a key question: How much should judges consider whether a policy is likely constitutional when deciding whether to issue these temporary blocks? The National Immigration Law Center, which supports the use of nationwide injunctions, wrote in its filing with the court that granting the administration鈥檚 request to bar such injunctions would 鈥 in the face of unlawful executive action.鈥
What exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?
Immediate, irreparable harm
When presidents try to make big changes through executive orders, they often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, can across the entire country.
These court orders have increasingly become a political battleground, increasingly sought by to fight presidential policies they oppose.
And while the Trump administration to limit judges鈥 power to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions, on curtailing judges鈥 ability to issue the injunctions.
When the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can sue in federal court to stop it. While these lawsuits work their way through the courts 鈥 a process that often takes years 鈥 judges can issue what are called 鈥減reliminary injunctions鈥 to the policy if they determine it might cause immediate, irreparable harm.
A 鈥溾 injunction 鈥 sometimes called a 鈥渦niversal鈥 injunction 鈥 goes further by stopping the policy for everyone across the country, not just for the people who filed the lawsuit.
Importantly, these injunctions are designed to be temporary. They merely preserve the status quo until courts can fully examine the case鈥檚 merits. But in practice, litigation proceeds so slowly that executive actions blocked by the courts often expire when successor administrations .
More executive orders, more injunctions
Nationwide injunctions , but several things have made them more contentious recently.
First, since a closely divided and polarized Congress , presidents rely more on executive orders to get substantive things done. This creates presidential actions in court.
Second, lawyers who want to challenge these orders have gotten better at 鈥溾 鈥 filing cases in districts where they鈥檙e likely to get judges who agree with their client鈥檚 views.
Third, with growing political division, aim to use these injunctions more aggressively whenever the other party controls the White House.
Affecting real people
These legal fights have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.
Take DACA, the common name for the program formally called , which protects about 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For , these young immigrants, known as 鈥淒reamers,鈥 have faced constant uncertainty.
That鈥檚 because, when President in 2012 and sought to expand it via executive order in 2015, a Texas judge with a nationwide injunction. When Trump tried to , judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked that move. The program, and the legal challenges to it, continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces continued legal challenges over the of the DACA program.
More recently, to block several Donald Trump policies.
While much of the current debate focuses on presidential policies, nationwide injunctions have also blocked congressional legislation.
The Corporate Transparency Act, , combats financial crimes by requiring businesses to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.
In early 2025, the Supreme Court to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it simply 鈥 showing how these legal battles can become political power struggles.
Too much power or necessary protection?
Some nationwide injunctions give too much power to a single judge. If lawyers can pick which judges hear their cases, this raises serious questions about fairness.
that these injunctions protect important rights. For example, without nationwide injunctions in the citizenship cases, babies born to mothers without legal permanent residency would be American citizens in some states but not others 鈥 an impossible situation.
Congress is to limit judges鈥 ability to grant nationwide injunctions.
The Trump administration has also tried to make it expensive and difficult to challenge its policies in court. In March 2025, Trump to demand large cash deposits 鈥 called 鈥渟ecurity bonds鈥 鈥 from anyone seeking an injunction. Though these bonds are already part of , judges usually set them at just a few hundred dollars or waive them entirely when people raise constitutional concerns.
Under the new policy, critics worry that 鈥減laintiffs who sue the government could be forced to put up enormous sums of money .鈥
Another way to address the concerns about a single judge blocking government action would be to require to hear cases involving nationwide injunctions, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.
suggests that three judges working together would be less likely to make partisan decisions, while still being able to protect constitutional rights when necessary. Today鈥檚 technology also makes it in different locations to work together than it was decades ago.
As the Supreme Court weighs in on this debate, the outcome will affect how presidents can implement policies and how much power individual judges have to stop them. Though it might seem like a technical legal issue, it will shape how government works for years to come 鈥 as well as the lives of those who live in the U.S.
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .