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.