The Supreme Court just lifted a key check on presidential power

Summary

Consider This from NPR: The Supreme Court Just Lifted a Key Check on Presidential Power

Release Date: June 27, 2025

In the latest episode of NPR's "Consider This," hosts dissect a groundbreaking Supreme Court decision that fundamentally alters the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch. Titled "The Supreme Court Just Lifted a Key Check on Presidential Power," the episode delves deep into the implications of limiting universal injunctions, a judicial tool that has historically served as a significant check on presidential actions.

---

1. Understanding Universal Injunctions

The episode opens with a historical perspective on the use of universal injunctions, especially during the Obama and Trump administrations. Ari Shapiro explains:

"In recent US History, big presidential policy initiatives have often died in federal district courthouses... The trickle of universal injunctions under Obama became a flood under President Trump." [00:00]

Universal injunctions are court orders that prevent the enforcement of executive actions across the entire nation, not just in specific districts. Under President Obama, initiatives like the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) were halted nationwide by lower court rulings. Similarly, President Trump's executive orders on travel and refugees faced numerous universal injunctions—64 times in his first term alone, as highlighted by Ari Shapiro.

2. The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision

The crux of the episode revolves around the Supreme Court's recent decision to significantly restrict the authority of lower courts to issue universal injunctions. This ruling, decided 6 to 3 along ideological lines, marks a pivotal shift in judicial oversight of executive actions.

Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, provides expert analysis:

"The court has limited universal injunctions. How big a change is this to the role of judges in our system of government?" [05:19]

The decision effectively removes a major barrier that previously required presidential policies to pass through a series of judicial reviews before taking effect nationwide.

3. Implications for Executive Orders

With the Supreme Court's ruling, the executive branch gains greater latitude to implement policies without immediate nationwide judicial intervention. Ari Shapiro delves into a specific example:

"For instance, three different federal judges had blocked Trump's executive order to deny U.S. citizenship to some babies born to immigrants. The Supreme Court reduced the scope of all three." [05:43]

This means that unless a lawsuit is filed in a particular jurisdiction, such executive orders can be enforced without encompassing the entire country.

4. Potential Surge in Executive Actions

The hosts discuss the broader ramifications of this decision, speculating that future presidents might exploit this newfound freedom. Amanda Frost warns:

"It creates the possibility that issuing lawless executive orders becomes a viable strategy, imposing policies until the Supreme Court intervenes." [10:11]

This scenario could lead to a surge in executive orders that may challenge constitutional boundaries, pending judicial review at the Supreme Court level.

5. The Judicial System Under Strain

A significant concern highlighted is the impending flood of lawsuits that the judicial system is ill-equipped to handle. Amanda Frost emphasizes:

"The court system is already overwhelmed, and now they look to be flooded with lawsuits." [08:46]

The requirement for unanimous consent from 650 district judges further complicates the process, making it exceedingly difficult to challenge executive actions swiftly.

6. Dissenting Voices and Concerns Over Rule of Law

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced strong opposition to the majority ruling, describing it as an existential threat to the rule of law:

"The decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law." [09:16]

Her dissent underscores the fear that executive overreach could become commonplace, undermining the foundational checks and balances of the U.S. government.

7. Future Outlook and Legislative Responses

Looking ahead, the episode predicts a landscape where executive orders can be enacted swiftly, with temporary effect until challenged in higher courts. Ari Shapiro reflects on the strategic maneuvers of the executive branch:

"The executive branch can manipulate the judicial system to attempt to avoid judicial review for as long as possible." [10:39]

Furthermore, the episode mentions a new nationwide class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other immigrant rights groups, aiming to counteract the executive order on birthright citizenship.

8. Concluding Insights

The episode wraps up by highlighting the long-term consequences of the Supreme Court's decision. With universal injunctions curtailed, the executive branch stands empowered to implement significant policy changes with minimal immediate judicial intervention, potentially reshaping American governance.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Ari Shapiro: "Universal injunctions have become a major check on the executive." [00:48]

• Amanda Frost: "This ruling is momentous both in this individual case and issue involving birthright citizenship." [06:07]

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "This is an existential threat to the rule of law." [09:16]

---

This episode of "Consider This" provides a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court's decision and its far-reaching implications for presidential power and judicial oversight. By interviewing experts like Amanda Frost and referencing key legal perspectives, NPR ensures listeners are well-informed about this pivotal shift in American governance.

Transcript

[A]

In recent US History, big presidential policy initiatives have often died in federal district courthouses, like President Obama's DAPA immigration plan, short for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. It would have given protection from deportation to millions of immigrants in the US without legal status. I disagree with the Texas judge's ruling, except that in 2015, a district court judge issued a nationwide or universal injunction preventing Obama from implementing the law anywhere in the country.

[B]

This is not the first time where.

[A]

A lower court judge has blocked something.

[B]

Or attempted to block something that ultimately was shown to be lawful.

[A]

In fact, the Supreme Court would ultimately deadlock in the case, and the policy never took effect. The trickle of universal injunctions under Obama became a flood under President Trump. A judge has just blocked our executive order on travel and refugees coming into our country from certain countries. Trump's policies were blocked by nationwide injunctions 64 times during his first term, according to a Harvard Law Review article. And his administration questioned whether judges really had that authority. This is, in the opinion of many, an unprecedented judicial overreach. As presidents have tried to expand the scope of their power. These universal injunctions have become a major check on the executive. But politicians on the right and the left have complained of judge shopping. Conservative plaintiffs bring cases in Texas. Progressives file suits in California or Massachusetts. So the claim is more likely to come before a sympathetic judge. During the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction suspending federal approval of the abortion drug methapristone. In a CNN interview, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez advised Biden to ignore the court's order.

[B]

The rules and policies passed by the executive branch now are going to require unanimous consent from 650 district court judges, many of which are appointed with even, you know, the American Bar association, saying that they're completely unfit for the role.

[A]

For the record, the Supreme Court eventually threw out that lawsuit. Now, in Trump's second term, the legisl the legal debate over universal injunctions reached the country's highest court. The Supreme Court has just dramatically limited the power of district courts to issue this type of injunction. That decision lifts a key constraint on Trump and whoever comes after him. From npr, I'm Ari Shapiro. The House of Representatives has approved a White House request to claw back two years of previously approved funding for public media. The rescissions package now moves on to the Senate. This move poses a serious threat to local stations and public media as we know it. Please take a stand for public media [e-mail]. thank you.

[B]

Decades ago, Brazilian women made a they could have an abortion without a doctor thanks to to a tiny pill. That pill spawned a global movement helping millions of women have safe abortions regardless of the law. Hear that story on the network from NPR's Embedded and Futuro Media. Wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

Fall in love with new music every Friday at All songs considered. That's NPR's music recommendation. Podcast Fridays are where we spend our whole show sharing all the greatest new.

[B]

Releases of the week.

[A]

Make the hunt for new music a.

[B]

Part of your life again.

[A]

Tap into New Music Friday from All Songs Considered available. Wherever you get your podcasts, it's Consider this from npr. In President Trump's second term, federal judges have found many of his policies unconstitutional, and they've issued dozens of universal injunctions. The Congressional research service documented 25 of them in just the first hundred days of this term. Three different federal judges blocked Trump's executive order to deny U.S. citizenship to some babies born to immigrants in the U.S. and when the case reached the Supreme Court, the administration didn't focus on the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. Instead, government lawyers put most of their energy into arguing that universal injunctions themselves are unconstitutional. And on Friday, in a 6 to 3 decision on ideological lines, the Supreme Court agreed. This decision may have huge implications to walk through them. I spoke with Amanda Frost. She studies immigration and citizenship law at the University of Virginia. So the court has limited universal injunctions. How big a change is this to the role of judges in our system of government?

[B]

Yeah, I think this is momentous. It expands executive branch authority and in turn limits the role of the courts, as well as overwhelming the lower federal courts with lawsuits. Because now the only way to get relief in cases challenging executive branch policies is for each and every individual to file a lawsuit unless there's a class action available, which is not a device that's available in every case.

[A]

So to take the specific example of the birthright citizenship case, three different court injunctions had blocked that executive order. The Supreme Court reduced the scope of all three. Does that mean this can now be enforced in places where no one has challenged it in court? But the executive order cannot be enforced in places where there have been successful lawsuits? Like how does this actually work?

[B]

The answer is likely yes. And I'll just point out every district court to address this question of the constitutionality and legality of the executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship held that it was blatantly unconstitutional, which is the language of one judge. But. But nonetheless As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, if the individual involved didn't file a lawsuit and lives in a state that didn't sue, it's quite possible that their child born within 30 days of this ruling or after 30 days of this ruling would not be a citizen. Or at least they'd have to demonstrate their own citizenship and immigration status before their child would be recognized as a citizen. So this ruling is momentous both in this individual case and issue involving birthright citizenship. But in addition, for all of the lawsuits challenging executive branch policies under this president and any future president, and so.

[A]

Taking the wide angle view beyond birthright citizenship, does this mean that any president can issue an executive order that is blatantly unconstitutional, hypothetically speaking, on guns or climate or immigration or literally anything, and until the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in on it, the executive order will remain in effect?

[B]

Yes. I mean, there's a good example. Maybe a future president would say, everyone has to turn in their handguns. No one can have a gun, which would clearly violate the Second Amendment and the Court's jurisprudence. And yet, unless and until the Supreme Court weighs in, that executive order could apply to everyone who didn't file a lawsuit. I will say there's one caveat to that, which is individual states have sued to challenge the birthright citizenship policy. And in the Supreme Court decision today, the Court did send it back to the lower courts and said, you need to determine the scope of the injunction needed to provide relief to these individual states. And that's because it's difficult to craft relief for a state that doesn't acknowledge that it needs to apply beyond individuals born within that state. And of course, could apply to anyone who moves around this country freely, as we all have a right to do.

[A]

Even though this decision was split on ideological lines, judges across the ideological spectrum have criticized nationwide injunctions. So what reason did the majority give for limiting them so dramatically?

[B]

Yes, and I will just say that I think nationwide injunctions can be overused and aren't appropriate in every case, as many judges have said, as many academics have said as well, who studied this issue, including myself. But the way the court decided this case is to say that it's likely beyond the authority of the lower courts to do this. And that really takes off the table universal injunctions. However, injunctive relief can be provided. Still, that's broad enough to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs, which could mean extending beyond individual plaintiffs in some cases. We'll have to see how this plays out.

[A]

You said that this could lead to Hundreds or thousands of lawsuits on any given issue. Is the court system ready for that?

[B]

No. Short answer? No. And they're already overwhelmed. The system is under enormous stress as it is, and now they look to be flooded with lawsuits. Anyone who's expecting a child over the next year, 30 days from now or beyond, will have to demonstrate their status for their child to be recognized as a citizen, unless they are somehow included within the relief given to individual plaintiffs or states.

[A]

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. Why such strong language?

[B]

I think Ketanji Brown Jackson is speaking from her experience as a judge on the lower courts. She sees the potential for this ruling by the Supreme Court to enable the executive branch to issue lawless executive orders or policies, and that then are applied across the nation unless and until the Supreme Court issues a final decision. And that prevents courts from exercising their essential role in our system of government, which is to check lawlessness and abuse by the executive branch.

[A]

So do you expect that, practically speaking, we will now see every new president issue as many executive orders that are as sweeping as they want, even if, in their heart of hearts, they know it's unconstitutional because they'll be able to get away with it for a while.

[B]

It certainly creates the possibility that that becomes a wise policy choice. I mean, here President Trump can win by losing. He can issue a lawless executive branch policy as the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order has been roundly critiqued by just about everybody. He can issue that and impose it on the people for months or years until it takes the Supreme Court to resolve it. And he's losing all these cases, which means if he chooses not to appeal them, it would never get to the Supreme Court.

[A]

Oh, interesting. So if he doesn't appeal the case, he loses. He can still implement that policy if on a steadily shrinking map of the United States, where he just carves out each specific place he's lost, but never appeals to the Supreme Court.

[B]

Yes, the executive branch can manipulate the judicial system to attempt to avoid judicial review for as long as possible. And Justice Elena Kagan pointed this out at oral argument. She made this very clear.

[A]

Amanda Frost is a professor at the University of Virginia Law School. Thank you.

[B]

You're welcome.

[A]

And a final note. After I spoke with Amanda Frost, the ACLU and other immigrants rights groups did file a nationwide class action lawsuit on behalf of babies and parents who would still be subject to the executive order on birthright citizenship. It would cover all families in the U.S. this episode was produced by Kai McNamee and Connor Donovan. It was edited by Patrick Jaranwattanan. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. And before we go, we want to say thank you to our Consider this Plus supporters. You make the journalism you hear on this show possible. Supporters also hear every episode without messages from sponsors. Learn more at plus.NPR.org It's Consider this from NPR. Hi, I'm Ari Shapiro. On the plus side, you get sponsor.

[B]

Free listening to over 25 NPR podcasts.

[A]

On the minus side, you get fewer chances to tap Fast Forward on your podcast player.

[B]

On the plus side, you get to support something you care about. On the minus side, you like challenges.

[A]

And think this makes it too easy.

[B]

So why don't you join us on the plus side of things with NPR? Learn more and sign up at plus.npr.org on NPR's Wild Card podcast, Michelle Obama says she's reinventing herself.

[A]

I don't know if my ambition has.

[B]

Ever fully been able to actualize itself. I think I'm now at a stage.

[A]

In my life where all my choices are mine.

[B]

I'm Rachel Martin.

[A]

Listen to Wildcard for a conversation about.

[B]

Balancing family and personal growth with Michelle Obama. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon prime members can listen to Consider this sponsor free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital.

[A]

Journalism and get consider this [e-mail] that's plus.NPR.org.