The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 27 that district court judges can’t issue universal injunctions, a ruling sought by the Trump administration. (Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, file)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that district courts can’t issue universal injunctions, ending an increasingly common way for lower-court judges to block polices nationally.

The 6-3 decision on June 27, which could strengthen President Donald Trump’s ability to govern by executive orders, was hailed by Trump. District courts have issued about 25 universal injunctions blocking, at least temporarily, Trump’s orders, including several imposing tariffs.

“It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly,” Trump said.

Conservative justices, in prior rulings, have urged the court to review whether district court judges can issue injunctions that apply to other jurisdictions and to parties not involved in the case before them.

Three nationwide stays, including one by a judge in western Washington, against Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship gave the court the opportunity to take up the issue.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said universal injunctions have no historic pedigree. The first universal injunction was issued in 1963, more than a century after the Founding Fathers passed the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Barrett cited a study that found 123 universal injunctions were issued between 1963 and 2023. Some 96 were issued during the presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Trump.

“Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them,” Barrett wrote.

Trump said the ruling will prevent courts from overriding an elected president.

“In recent months, we’ve seen a handful of radical-left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies they voted for,” Trump said.

Groups from across the political spectrum, including farm groups, have sought universal injunctions. Farm groups supported a universal injunction last year against the Corporate Transparency Act, which mandated businesses to report to federal financial crime investigators.

Also last year, a district court judge issued a universal injunction against a Biden-era rule giving guest foreign farmworkers union rights. A federal court in 2015 issued a universal injunction against an Obama administration rule that extended the reach of the Clean Water Act to low spots in farm fields isolated from waterways.

Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett in the ruling. The ruling did not address the constitutionality of Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Writing for the three dissenting judges, Sotomayor said Trump’s order was plainly unconstitutional.

The ruling means that no matter how illegal a law or policy is, courts can never simply tell the executive branch to stop enforcing it against everyone, she wrote.

Only individuals who are parties in a lawsuit will have their constitutional rights protected, according to Sotomayor.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates,” the dissent reads. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”