SCOUTS Ruling Threatens Nationwide Blocks On Trump Policies/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court ruling limits nationwide injunctions, jeopardizing dozens of orders blocking Trump’s policies. Key issues at stake include birthright citizenship, election laws, immigration, and transgender care funding. Opponents vow to keep fighting through class actions and other legal paths despite the decision.
Quick Look
- What Happened: Supreme Court restricts federal judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.
- Key Impact: Rulings blocking Trump policies on immigration, elections, diversity, and health care could unravel.
- Next Steps: New class-action suits filed; legal battles shift back to lower courts for further rulings.
Supreme Court Ruling on Injunctions Puts Trump Policy Blocks at Risk
Deep Look
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court ruling Friday sharply limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions could threaten dozens of court orders that have blocked President Donald Trump’s policies since he returned to the White House.
Since Trump’s second term began, federal judges have issued about 40 nationwide injunctions against his administration, targeting policies on issues ranging from elections and immigration to diversity programs. Lawyers challenging Trump’s agenda say they’ll keep fighting, noting the high court left other legal paths open that could still lead to sweeping nationwide impacts.
Here’s a closer look at which major legal fights could be affected:
Birthright Citizenship
Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions to block Trump’s executive order seeking to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people living in the country illegally or temporarily.
While Friday’s Supreme Court ruling stemmed from a lawsuit over that order, the justices did not decide whether Trump’s policy could soon take effect in parts of the country.
Within hours of the decision, opponents filed new class-action lawsuits in states including Maryland and New Hampshire, using legal avenues that the court explicitly left open for broader relief.
Election Rules
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts blocked a Trump executive order that would overhaul federal election rules.
Trump’s order would have required documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, restricted mailed ballots to those received by Election Day, and tied federal election funding to compliance with those deadlines.
California, a key plaintiff, is currently reviewing how Friday’s ruling might affect its litigation.
Legal Aid for Migrant Children
In April, a California judge blocked Trump’s administration from cutting funding for legal services to unaccompanied migrant children.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ruled that limiting the injunction geographically wasn’t feasible because the funding contract covered services nationwide.
Adina Appelbaum, an attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she doesn’t believe the Supreme Court’s decision would significantly alter their case. However, she criticized the ruling as abandoning the court’s responsibility to protect vulnerable communities.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
A Maryland judge in February halted Trump’s executive orders aimed at dismantling government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson issued a preliminary injunction barring the administration from canceling federal contracts linked to equity initiatives.
Although an appeals court paused Abelson’s injunction, Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward said Friday’s ruling still leaves room for some decisions to block Trump’s policies. She called the ruling another hurdle for plaintiffs seeking nationwide protections in court.
Transgender Health Care
In February, a Maryland judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from healthcare providers offering gender-affirming care to minors.
U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said a nationwide injunction was essential to prevent chaos in healthcare funding, warning that a patchwork approach would cause widespread confusion.
While an appeal is pending, last week the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, creating new uncertainty for similar cases.
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan of Lambda Legal, who helped secure Hurson’s ruling, said they’re reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision but emphasized that broad relief remains possible in some situations.
Federal Program Cuts
Trump’s administration is appealing that ruling.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha vowed to keep fighting, saying he will “continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.”
While Friday’s Supreme Court decision is a significant win for Trump, it also sets the stage for continued legal battles as courts wrestle with how to apply the ruling—and whether nationwide blocks on controversial policies will remain possible through other means.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.