A major legal dispute recently culminated not in a courtroom showdown but through a significant Supreme Court decision paired with a fiery dissenting opinion, sparking debate across the nation.
Central to the controversy was the Court’s ruling on the use of “universal injunctions,” judicial orders that block federal policies nationwide rather than just for the parties involved in a case.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that significantly limited the power of lower courts to issue these broad injunctions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, representing the conservative bloc, arguing that federal judges should not exercise broad oversight over the executive branch beyond the specific cases Congress has authorized.
She emphasized that courts are meant to resolve concrete disputes, not impose sweeping policy decisions across the country. However, this viewpoint drew sharp criticism from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who condemned the ruling as dangerously weakening the judiciary’s ability to protect constitutional rights.
Jackson’s dissent vividly described the majority’s decision as “mad as a bag of cats,” warning that it would leave individuals vulnerable to federal policies without proper legal recourse. The ruling originated from a high-profile case involving former President Trump’s 2025 executive order restricting birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary-status parents. While the Court did not address the executive order’s constitutionality directly, it focused on procedural constraints, effectively allowing the executive branch to enforce such policies locally and temporarily unless challenged through more narrowly tailored legal means.
Following this precedent, federal courts nationwide have increasingly turned to class-action lawsuits to seek broader, nationwide injunctions, as seen in a recent New Hampshire case where Judge Laplante granted relief through class certification while acknowledging the Supreme Court’s new limits on blanket orders. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana publicly praised the Supreme Court’s decision during an appearance on Fox’s Faulkner Focus, calling it a crucial correction to judicial overreach. Kennedy described universal injunctions as “fish food” and criticized judges for arrogantly circumventing Congress and the president’s authority. He expressed unapologetic support for the Court, declaring, “Good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court.” When addressing Justice Jackson’s dissent, Kennedy dismissed her concerns, underscoring his belief that the ruling restores proper balance between the branches of government and curtails unwarranted judicial activism. This landmark ruling and the accompanying public reactions underscore the ongoing tension over the judiciary’s role in shaping and checking federal policies, highlighting deep divisions over the limits of judicial power and the protection of individual rights.