Topline

The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday saying lower federal judges can’t unilaterally block the Trump administration’s policies nationwide will have a widespread impact on the dozens of pending lawsuits over the president’s agenda, slowing down efforts to halt controversial actions and likely giving the Supreme Court a greater role over which policies stay in place.

Class Action Lawsuits: The Supreme Court expressly said Friday that plaintiffs can still try to halt Trump policies nationwide by bringing class action lawsuits, in which a court could provide relief to anyone who belongs to a certain class. In the case over Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship—which sparked Friday’s ruling—for instance, plaintiffs asked Friday to change the lawsuit to a class action suit brought on behalf of every child who’s born or will be born in the U.S. after February 19 and is impacted by Trump’s order. That carveout means there are still cases where a court could provide widespread relief, but there are more federal rules around class action lawsuits, such as restricting people who lose a case in one court from just bringing their litigation in a different court.

Administrative Procedure Act: The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that lower federal courts can also still block federal policies under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs how the executive branch can issue regulations. Courts can still declare that policies are unlawful under that law and block them nationwide as a result, the Supreme Court said, pointing to federal rules that grant courts the power to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions.” Many lawsuits against the Trump administration accuse the government of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and thus could be left untouched by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Logistical Need For Nationwide Relief: The Supreme Court also acknowledged there are instances in which it’s necessary to block a policy nationwide in order for a party in the case to actually get “complete relief.” States that challenged the birthright citizenship policy, for instance, have argued it’s necessary for the policy to be blocked nationwide in order for them to have full relief, because otherwise it would create a situation where children born in their state could be citizens, but would not be considered citizens in a different state. The Supreme Court declined to decide Friday whether the ruling blocking the birthright citizenship order should extend nationwide—leaving it to the lower court—but its ruling leaves room for parties in lawsuits to argue that a policy has to be blocked nationwide for them to actually get relief.

Trump told reporters Friday that his administration is likely to go swiftly back to court in a number of cases to now challenge injunctions that have blocked the government’s policies nationwide. In addition to the case over birthright citizenship, the president suggested the administration will also fight rulings on issues like sanctuary city funding, transgender healthcare and refugee admissions, among others. It remains to be seen how those cases will play out, and plaintiffs could take steps like those in the birthright citizenship case and try to change their lawsuits to class action lawsuits, or otherwise tweak them in order to fit the carveouts the Supreme Court outlined. If they can’t, however, judges will be bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling to restrict orders that previously applied nationwide, likely leading to a patchwork situation in which policies may be blocked in some areas or against some Americans, but not others.

The Supreme Court’s ruling likely slows down the timeline for Trump policies getting blocked nationwide. While judges could previously block policies within a matter of hours or days—only needing to hold a single hearing before issuing an order—they will now only be able to issue limited orders. As a result, it could be a matter of weeks, or longer, before a policy could potentially be blocked nationwide. After a district court rules, a case will first have to go to an appeals court—which still cannot put a policy in place nationwide—and then to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether or not it can stay in place nationwide. While appeals courts and the Supreme Court can rule swiftly in some cases, other rulings can get dragged out for longer, potentially leaving challenged policies in place for lengthy periods before a final ruling is issued.

The Supreme Court’s ruling empowers the court to be the arbiter in more cases over Trump’s agenda going forward—which could be beneficial for the president, given that the 6-3 conservative court has so far largely ruled in his favor since Inauguration Day. “This Court has … often acted as the ultimate decider of the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions. After today’s decision, that order of operations will not change,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion Friday concurring with the majority. Kavanaugh acknowledged the court’s ruling will likely result in “a flood of decisions from lower courts, after which the losing parties on both sides will probably inundate this Court with applications for stays or injunctions”—calling on his colleagues to fulfill their “vitally important responsibility to resolve applications … with respect to major new federal statutes and executive actions.”

While the case at the heart of Friday’s ruling centered on Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens, the decision still leaves the fate of that policy up in the air. The court did not rule either way on whether the executive order is constitutional, but said it will not take effect for another 30 days. When those 30 days are up, the current court decisions blocking the policy nationwide will only be narrowed to the extent that they give the Democratic-led states and individuals who brought the case “complete relief.” What that actually means in practice remains to be seen, as a lower court will still have to decide to what extent the policy should be blocked—whether that’s nationwide, as plaintiffs argue it still should be, or just in the states that sued over the policy. If the executive order does take effect in at least some states, it’s also still unclear how it will be enforced, as Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to answer specific questions Friday about how the government would enforce which children are and aren’t eligible for citizenship when they’re born. “There is already considerable uncertainty” over what happens with birthright citizenship, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong told reporters Friday after the court’s ruling, noting it’s “not clear what will happen after those 30 days” that the policy is paused.

Friday’s ruling over nationwide injunctions marked the Supreme Court’s first major ruling on the Trump administration’s agenda since Inauguration Day. The Trump administration asked the high court to take up the dispute after judges issued dozens of nationwide rulings halting its policies, leading Trump and his allies to decry so-called partisan judges, whom they claimed were “abusing” their power by blocking the president’s agenda. The outcry over federal judges ruling against Trump sparked calls for judges to be impeached and lawmakers introducing legislation that would restrict nationwide injunctions, though none of those actions appeared likely to pass. Trump hailed the court’s ruling as “amazing” and a “GREAT WIN” Friday on Truth Social and in comments to reporters, saying the Supreme Court should be “very proud” and he’s “grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem and making it very simple.”