President Donald Trump praised a Friday Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for his immigration agenda, and also signaled to lower court judges that their days of issuing blanket nationwide injunctions may be coming to an end.
“I was elected on a historic mandate, but 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 that they voted for in record numbers,” Trump said following the SCOTUS decision.
“It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” he added.
WATCH: @realDonaldTrump applauds the Supreme Court’s decision to rein in “radical left judges.” pic.twitter.com/cTJgmj9grQ
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 27, 2025
Trump also said: “This is really also a decision based on common sense. It didn’t work the other way. It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state, or a liberal judge, or a liberal group of judges could tie up a whole country for years.”
.@POTUS: “This is really also a decision based on common sense. It didn’t work the other way. It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state or a liberal judge or liberal group of judges could tie up a country for years.” pic.twitter.com/MFcAIjKIVG
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 27, 2025
“We’ve overturned many of the decisions, but it would take years to do it, and we have to act quickly when it comes to illegal immigration,” Trump said. “We have murderers, killers, we have drug dealers, we have — what they’ve allowed to come into our country should never be forgotten.”
Will this decision make the country a better place?
Not only does this have far-reaching implications for Trump’s policy agenda — which has been slowed by various judicial orders — it also focuses on the issue of birthright citizenship.
Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”
In it, the president argued that “the privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” and outlined how “The Fourteenth Amendment states: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’”
The Fourteenth Amendment, however, had never been fully “interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” the order continued. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
Trump then outlined certain people who should not be considered for automatic citizenship because they were born here. Mainly, those who came unlawfully, along with people visiting the U.S. on a visa waiver program, for work, as students, and those on a tourist visa.
If upheld, this would be a huge blow to illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. while pregnant — or who become pregnant after they’ve entered.
These sorts of actions are a clear perversion of our Constitution, but it has never been fully debated and addressed until now.
In the high court’s 6-3 ruling on Trump v. CASA, the majority voted to narrow the nationwide injunctions, including on this particular issue of citizenship. Though they didn’t fully decide the legality of Trump’s order, they did set a precedent that federal judges have gone too far.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion and explained “that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions.”
“It is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive,” she wrote. “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’”
“That goes for judges, too,” Barrett added. “When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
“For good reason,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, “the Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”
“The Court also makes clear that the complete-relief principle provides a ceiling on federal courts’ authority, which must be applied alongside other ‘principles of equity’ and our holding that universal injunctions are impermissible.”
This is the beginning of a brand new day. We were told judges were above politics — their black robes signified a fair arbiter on things that really mattered.
Yet we’ve discovered the American judiciary is rife with political rot, and their reign of tyranny may finally be over.
They should go back to interpreting the law, rather than legislating it from the bench. Leave the crafting and enforcement of policy to the other two branches, as it was always intended.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
