United States: In a swift and pointed public address, President Donald Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s emphatic restraint on lower courts’ authority to enact blanket legal blocks, a move he described as a strike against what he termed judicial overreach.

Trump emerged at the podium scarcely an hour after the ruling was handed down, branding it a repudiation of what he called a “gargantuan misuse of judicial discretion.”

“I was voted in on a seismic mandate,” Trump said. “But in recent months, a fringe cluster of ideological judges attempted to snatch away the rightful reins of the presidency—hindering the public from receiving the very policies they overwhelmingly backed.”

The judgment now unlocks the Department of Justice’s ability to expedite the rollout of multiple policies previously frozen by sweeping court orders. Trump announced that the DOJ would move “without delay” to revive those stalled directives.

Casting blame squarely on select federal judges, Trump asserted that they had attempted to wield legislative dominion, crafting decisions with nationwide consequences, far beyond their assigned jurisdictions, according to Fox News.

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 verdict, decreed that broad injunctions from lower courts shall be permitted only in narrowly confined cases. However, the decision leaves lingering uncertainty regarding its immediate bearing on the disputed birthright citizenship directive, which initially catalyzed the case.

Earlier in the year, the Court had agreed to deliberate over a triad of fused cases involving federal judges from Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington State. These judges had barred Trump’s move to rescind birthright citizenship from being enforced across the country. The administration labeled these court-wide blocks as legally disproportionate and appealed.

Although the May hearings did not probe deeply into the substance of the injunctions, Friday’s decision clarified the Court’s focus: the authority to grant such broad remedies, not the underlying policy’s legality.

Trump gave notable praise to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion, commending her “illuminated articulation.” He extended his acclaim to Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts for aligning with the decision.

Barrett wrote that the petitions did not compel the Court to address whether the executive order contravenes the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act.

“This is a matter of judicial remedy.” “Whether federal courts possess the inherent authority, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions.”

Barrett noted

She continued:

“Such expansive legal remedies can only be justified under equitable powers—and Congress has not endowed federal courts with such latitude.”

Barrett’s commentary subtly undercut Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. She argued that Jackson’s stance clashed with over 200 years of legal tradition and the Constitution’s foundational intent, as per Fox News.

“While Justice Jackson decries an executive overreach, she paradoxically champions a judiciary of imperial scale,” Barrett remarked.

In her strongly worded dissent, Jackson countered that the ruling bestows dangerous latitude upon the presidency, suggesting it paves the way for executive violations of constitutional boundaries. She characterized the decision as a “menace to the scaffolding of lawful governance.”