The U.S. Supreme Court just handed Donald Trump a major legal win.

In a significant 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that can temporarily halt presidential policies. The case, though tied to Trump’s proposed executive order ending birthright citizenship, did not settle the citizenship issue. Instead, it introduced a broader shift: Americans who wish to challenge Trump’s future policies in court may now face added hurdles.

This decision marks a major win for former President Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized the judiciary’s use of nationwide injunctions during his previous term. His administration had multiple initiatives, such as efforts to deport migrants and ban transgender individuals from military service, blocked by these types of orders.

The ruling does not eliminate all forms of judicial relief. Class-action lawsuits, where individuals sue on behalf of a broader group, remain viable. States may also still pursue broad injunctions if they can prove the policy causes harm across state lines.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices issued strong dissents. Justice Sotomayor warned that the decision “invites the government to bypass the Constitution,” and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued it paves the way for unchecked executive power.

Trump celebrated the ruling as a historic victory, calling it a win for democracy. Critics, however, warn that this could set a dangerous precedent that limits the judiciary’s power to serve as a check on unlawful executive action.

The decision is part of a broader pattern, as the conservative-majority court has repeatedly sided with Trump in high-stakes cases. The implications for a potential second Trump term are enormous.

See also: US Senate REJECTS Iran war limits on Trump

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, legal advocates and state governments quickly pivoted to alternative strategies. Since federal judges are now limited in issuing nationwide blocks on Trump’s policies, challengers are turning to class-action lawsuits and state-led actions.

Groups challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order, including immigrant rights advocates and pregnant women, asked a lower court in Maryland to issue relief on behalf of a nationwide class. The plaintiffs argue that the order threatens constitutional rights and could harm any children born after February 2025. They are now seeking an emergency order to halt enforcement while the lawsuit proceeds.

The American Civil Liberties Union also filed a new class-action suit, arguing that Trump’s policy undermines the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang emphasized that these lawsuits are now a critical avenue for protecting fundamental rights.

Justice Barrett left the door open for courts to grant broad relief in specific cases, particularly when plaintiffs can prove systemic harm. Democratic states are expected to capitalize on this. California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that states will return to court to renew their arguments for a policy-wide block, citing the difficulty in containing the effects of Trump’s executive order within state borders.

Though the Supreme Court did not directly resolve the birthright citizenship question, Attorney General Pam Bondi predicted the court would take it up in its October 2025 session. With Trump’s legal team confident in the court’s conservative lean, this next round could be decisive.

The bottom line: the legal landscape has shifted, but opponents of Trump’s policies aren’t backing down. Instead, they are adapting  with new legal tools, broader lawsuits, and a long game aimed at returning the issue to the high court.