Supreme Court rulings entrench the unchilled powers of the president

2 July 2025

One year ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that the president is largely immune from most legal actions relating to official acts, citing concerns a lack of immunity would “chill” the president and hamper their ability to govern. Many of the Supreme Court rulings for the end of this term are on cases testing the outer limit of presidential powers. In most cases, their rulings double down on the power of the president, with certain important caveats.

Perhaps the most controversial has been their ruling on Trump v. CASA Inc., which looked at the relationship between the executive and judicial branches in relation to President Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to children born in the United States to parents without legal or permanent residential status. Rather than picking up the question of constitutionality (the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States), but instead looked at the balance of power.

Several immigrants rights groups and 22 states sued the administration after the executive order and three district courts considered the suits and issued a nationwide injunction, barring the implementation of the executive order. The Trump administration appealed these injunctions to the Supreme Court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” and therefore, the injunctions must be overturned. She cites class action lawsuits as a more appropriate vehicle to challenge executive orders. The American Civil Liberties Union has already submitted a class action suit on the topic, which will likely end up before the Supreme Court again.

Supreme Court rulings on state bans on transgender issues and parental ability to remove kids from class where there are topics counter to their religious beliefs aligned with the conservative majority on the court. But the Trump v. CASA ruling is unique. It sets a historic new precedent and one at a time when the limits of executive power are being tested in the extreme. It gives more freedom and leeway to the Executive Branch and increases the burden on plaintiffs in a way that may fundamentally alter both how executive orders are challenged and who is realistically able to bring such an action. However, because this ruling was based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, rather than the Constitution, that act could subsequently be amended or revised by an act of Congress, once again forming a live case study of checks and balances in the American system.

Lead image: Often referred to as "the running of the interns," a journalist runs out of the US Supreme Court building carrying an ruling during the last day of the court's term on 27 June 2025.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

"The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions."

Justice Barrett in the majority opinion on Trump v. CASA Inc. |  27 June 2025

Recent content from us

Our experts in the news

By the numbers

Breakdown of universal injunctions
2001-2024

Source: Harvard Law Review

In the majority opinion in Trump v. CASA Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett focused on the use of nationwide, or universal, injunctions imposed by federal district courts. She cited a 2024 Harvard Law Review article which found that universal injunctions originated in 1963 and the frequency of these injunctions escalated rapidly from President George W. Bush through President Biden. The study found records of 127 universal injunctions from district courts from 1963-2024. Of these, 76% occurred from President George W. Bush onwards and 50% (64) occurred during President Trump’s first term.

Many of these injunctions are appealed to the Supreme Court and both liberal and conservative appointed justices have warned of judicial overreach in their opinions.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan all dissented in Trump v. CASA Inc, citing, “universal injunctions are consistent with long-established principles of equity, once respected by this Court.” However, in Biden v. Nebraska considering the nationwide injunction against President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, these three justices opposed the injunction and made an argument similar to Justice Barrett in CASA about judicial overreach. They said, “The result here is that the Court substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch in making national policy.”

That said, the majority of their dissent focused on the unconstitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order, whereas in the loan forgiveness case, much of their dissent was around the lack of legal standing for the plaintiffs which led to the injunction.

The new precedent for universal injunctions will likely change the nature of cases that go to the Supreme Court. The class action cases as a follow up to CASA will be a good case study for how this different approach is received by the court.

Upcoming events

Manage your email preferences  |  Forward this email to a friend

United States Studies Centre
Institute Building (H03)
University of Sydney NSW 2006

​www.ussc.edu.au  |  us-studies@sydney.edu.au