Should a Single Judge Be Able to Stop a President? Supreme Court Weighs Nationwide Injunctions

A high-stakes court case could alter the power of federal judges to block presidential actions nationwide. At the center of the dispute is an executive order from President Trump targeting birthright citizenship. But the key focus in the case is whether a single district judge can stop a presidential order for the entire country.

One of the most powerful tools available to judges, the nationwide injunction, took center stage at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the historical context of such rulings, asking whether “we’ve had universal injunctions in some form since the founding,” and clarifying, “In equity, correct?”

President Trump’s executive order, which sought to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents, was halted by several district court judges who issued nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court is not deciding the constitutionality of the policy itself, at least not yet, but whether one judge should have authority to stop federal action nationwide.

Mike Fox of the Cato Institute defended the courts’ actions, saying, “We have a system. The system works well the way it’s designed. The only thing that’s not happening is the president isn’t getting the outcome he desires.”

However, critics argue that the power is too broad in the hands of a few judges. 

Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation says district judges are exceeding their constitutional role: “Not only are district judges acting like little Supreme Courts—they’re also acting like little Congresses. They’ve gone way beyond their assigned role in our federal system.”

Despite the high court’s focus on judicial authority, the constitutional weight of birthright citizenship—and its clash with Trump’s order—repeatedly pulled debate back to the merits. 

Justice Sotomayor underscored the tension, reminding the courtroom, “And we have another case that says even if your parents secured their citizenship illegally, you’re still a citizen. So as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the Court was moving too quickly on the birthright citizenship issue, asking if it first needed “percolation”—a legal term referring to lower courts debating the matter before Supreme Court review. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer agreed, warning that nationwide injunctions exacerbate the problem by forcing judges into “rushed, fast-and-furious decisions on the merits” before the legal arguments have fully matured.

A ruling is expected in the coming months and could redefine the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.

***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters to ensure you keep receiving the latest updates from a distinctly Christian perspective.***