Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits

Supreme Court Blocks Universal Injunctions: Major Shift in Executive Power Limits
How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches—particularly in how federal courts can respond to presidential actions.


In a 6–3 ruling along ideological lines, the Court held that federal district courts lack the authority to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions—orders that block a federal policy or executive action from being enforced against anyone beyond the plaintiffs in a given case. Instead, the Court concluded that lower courts may only grant relief sufficient to provide “complete relief” to the parties before them.

What the Ruling Means in Practice

  • Individuals or organizations seeking to challenge a presidential order must now sue individually or as part of a certified class action.
  • Courts can no longer issue sweeping injunctions that halt a federal policy nationwide while litigation proceeds.

Implications for Presidential Power

The decision effectively narrows one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools for checking executive authority. As a result:

  • Presidents may implement contested policies more freely, even while those policies are under legal challenge.
  • Legal opposition will likely become more fragmented and slower, requiring coordinated lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions.
  • The precedent applies to future administrations as well, regardless of party, potentially expanding the scope of executive action without immediate nationwide judicial constraint.

Impact on Birthright Citizenship

The Court did not address the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. That issue remains unresolved and will continue to be litigated in lower courts.

Broader Constitutional Questions

The ruling has sparked debate over the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision could allow presidents to enforce potentially unconstitutional policies while legal challenges are still pending, thereby weakening the courts’ ability to provide timely relief.

Context: A Long Arc of Expanding Executive Power

The CASA decision fits within a broader historical trend of increasing presidential authority. However, it stands out as a judicially sanctioned limitation on the courts themselves—altering the structural balance of power.

Era

Key Developments

Impact

Jacksonian Era (1820s–40s)

Asserted strong executive leadership, vetoed the national bank

Sparked fears of “King Andrew I” authoritarianism

Lincoln (1860s)

Suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War

Set the precedent for emergency powers

FDR (1930s–40s)

New Deal programs via executive orders

Expanded federal and executive authority dramatically

Post-WWII Presidents

Truman entered the Korean War without Congress; Eisenhower used CIA covertly

Cemented the president as a foreign policy leader

Post-9/11 Era

Bush expanded surveillance and war powers

The Patriot Act and unitary executive theory gained traction

Trump Era

Frequent use of executive orders, challenged norms

Pushed boundaries on immigration and emergency declarations

Unlike previous expansions that increased executive tools, the CASA ruling limits the judiciary’s ability to respond—marking a structural shift in the separation of powers.

Implications for Future Litigation Strategies

The decision is prompting a strategic recalibration among civil rights groups, democracy reform advocates, and public interest litigators. Key shifts include:

  • A move away from reliance on single-district court rulings to block federal policies nationwide.
  • Increased use of class action lawsuits to achieve broader relief, though these efforts are often more complex and time-consuming.
  • Greater emphasis on coordinated, multi-jurisdictional legal strategies to build momentum across the courts.

In response, coalitions such as Democracy 2025 are developing legal infrastructure to meet this challenge, including rapid-response teams and pooled legal resources.

Legal scholars and institutions are also weighing in. Just Security, a nonpartisan law and policy forum, has published a detailed analysis outlining alternative legal pathways to achieve broader relief in the post-CASA landscape.

Strategic Takeaway

While the CASA ruling does not expand executive power directly, it reshapes the legal terrain on which executive authority is contested. For those working to uphold democratic accountability, the decision underscores the need for:

  • Distributed legal strategies across jurisdictions
  • Narrative framing that connects legal challenges to democratic principles
  • Collaborative infrastructure that integrates litigation, civic engagement, and public education

As the legal and civic sectors adapt, the ruling may serve as a catalyst for new forms of democratic resilience—rooted not only in the courts but in the broader ecosystem of public accountability.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold

Getty Images, fudfoto

Arrests of Immigrants With No Criminal Record up More Than 1,000%, While Criminal Arrests Rise 55%: The Change at ICE Under Trump Administration

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term in January 2025, detentions of immigrants without criminal records increased more than 10-fold: from 1,048 detainees to 11,972 (an increase of 1,042%), according to public data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of immigration enforcement within the United States

In the same period (January 1 to June 28, 2025), the number of detainees with criminal records rose by 55%, from 9,741 to 15,141.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account

Supreme Court.

Equality Now

The Supreme Court Ruling in the Skrmetti Case Should Have Taken Sex Discrimination Into Account

A quick recap:

  • The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban, weakening equal protections.
  • Tennessee’s law denies care based on sex assigned at birth, despite claims it doesn’t.
  • The Supreme Court decision and Tenessee’s law violates international human rights standards on health and non-discrimination.
  • To reach a decision, the Court revived harmful legal reasoning.
  • Without stronger protections, discrimination can be hidden in neutral language.

On June 18, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Court held that Tennessee’s law does not rely on a sex-based classification and therefore does not warrant heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The decision sidestepped the central role sex plays in the Tennessee law, effectively signaling that states may target gender-affirming care for transgender youth without triggering the constitutional protections typically afforded in such cases.

The Court accepted Tennessee’s claim that the law at issue merely regulates “based on age” and “medical use,” not on sex or transgender status. But this framing misrepresents how the law functions in practice: access to treatment is determined entirely by a patient’s sex assigned at birth. It’s not the treatment itself that is restricted, but who is seeking it and for what purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

"America would not have been able to become the economic powerhouse it is without...immigrants," writes Ronald L. Hirsch. "So what's the political and humane solution to the immigration problem?"

Getty Images, Thanasis

A Democrat’s Answer to the Immigration Issue

Polls show that the issue of immigration—actually, it's just illegal immigration—has become a major concern to a majority of Americans. No doubt that is largely because of Trump's vilification of undocumented immigrants.

But illegal immigration has, in fact, been a major problem for many years. Why? Mainly because roughly 11 million undocumented individuals have been living here for years, working and paying taxes, yet they are outside the legal framework of our society. That is the problem.

Keep ReadingShow less