Hyperventilating ran heavy in June after the Supreme Court issued its ruling that courts had been too profligate in using nationwide injunctions to stop the president, and ordered lower judges to cool it. Here’s what you need to know about how the ruling has played out in practice:

The initial reaction

Supreme Court ruling prompted dire predictions about presidential power:

The judicial workarounds

Lower courts find alternative methods to block presidential actions:

The practical impact

Legal experts say outcome remains similar despite new methods:

The case review findings

Washington Times analysis shows continued broad relief:

The birthright citizenship example

Lower courts quickly found ways around Supreme Court restrictions:

The Administrative Procedure Act avenue

Judges increasingly use APA to shut down Trump policies wholesale:

The Supreme Court’s limited expectations

Justice suggested ruling might not create seismic shift:

The criticism of new approach

Legal expert warns about rushed class action certifications:

Read more:

• Supreme Court’s nationwide injunction ruling fizzles as judges find new ways to block Trump

This article is written with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence based solely on Washington Times original reporting and wire services. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Ann Wog, Managing Editor for Digital, at awog@washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.