On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared rogue lower courts’ universal injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order to be unlawful.

“[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote.

The final decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joining Barrett in the majority. Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Known as Trump v. CASA, Inc., the matter before the high court centers around the issuance of nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” That is a concept in which any individual born on American soil is automatically granted U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment, irrespective of whether that individual’s parents are legally permitted to be in the U.S.

Following a series of injunctions blocking the order’s implementation among lower courts, the Trump administration appealed to SCOTUS, asking the high court to “‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,’” and limit “those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power.” The case and Friday’s decision does not, however, determine the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

In her majority opinion, Barrett noted that the injunctions brought before the Court “reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone.”

“These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions,'” she wrote, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

“The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” Barrett wrote. “The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity. The injunctions are also stayed to the extent that they prohibit executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance about the Executive’s plans to implement the Executive Order.”

In addition to signing onto the majority decision, Thomas authored a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined. Thomas noted that the high court’s Friday ruling “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,” Thomas wrote. “Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be ‘dutybound’ to intervene.”

Alito and Kavanaugh also authored concurring opinions in the case, with Thomas signing onto the former.

[RELATED: Birthright Citizenship Is A Pernicious Lie That’s Destroying America]

Meanwhile, Sotomayor authored the primary dissenting opinion. The Obama appointee indicated her belief that Trump’s birthright citizenship order is unlawful and accused the administration of political “gamesmanship” for asking the Court to strike down universal injunctions against the policy.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.”

Jackson also authored a separate dissenting opinion in the matter.