Judges keep blocking Trump's policies despite US Supreme Court injunction curbs

President Donald Trump hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling as a “monumental victory” after it restricted federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies across the country. The 6–3 ruling by the court’s conservative majority was intended to limit such sweeping orders, arguing that they often exceeded judicial authority. However, the decision left significant exceptions that lower courts are already using to keep key Trump-era policies in check.

These exceptions have become critical legal tools. For instance, federal judges recently blocked Trump’s controversial asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, preserved protections for Haitian migrants from deportation, and mandated the restoration of health websites that had been erased under Trump’s initiatives targeting “gender ideology.”

A major test of the Supreme Court ruling is set to unfold in New Hampshire, where a judge will review Trump’s executive order that aims to restrict birthright citizenship. Though the Supreme Court avoided ruling on the order’s constitutionality, it did require lower courts to reconsider existing nationwide blocks.

The plaintiffs in this case – represented by the ACLU – are challenging the birthright order by pursuing class action status. If successful, this would allow the injunction to apply nationally under one of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court: class-wide relief. This legal strategy aims to navigate around the new restrictions by framing the affected individuals (babies and parents) as part of a single legal class, thereby justifying broader judicial protection.

The class action strategy is already gaining traction. On July 2, Judge Randolph Moss in Washington D.C. certified a nationwide class of migrants affected by Trump’s asylum ban and issued an injunction to protect the group, sidestepping the Supreme Court’s nationwide injunction ban by invoking Rule 23 a federal rule that governs class action lawsuits.

The ACLU, a leading civil liberties group involved in both the asylum and birthright citizenship cases, sees this route as essential. Attorney Lee Gelernt predicts a surge in class actions as legal teams seek to block Trump’s directives. However, success is not guaranteed. The Trump administration argues that the proposed class in New Hampshire is too diverse consisting of both asylum seekers and student visa holders to meet Rule 23’s requirement that class members suffer the same injury.

Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the majority opinion, warned judges to strictly apply Rule 23 standards, a process that can take months. Nonetheless, class certification isn't the only method available to limit Trump’s policies. Judges have also used administrative law violations as another basis to block policies nationwide such as rulings against ending protections for Haitian migrants and cutting federal research grants to universities.

Judge Brian Murphy in Boston even suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA may not apply in certain cases involving improper administrative procedure. These legal maneuvers reveal that despite the Supreme Court's attempt to curtail sweeping injunctions, courts retain powerful tools to challenge executive actions they find unlawful or unconstitutional. 

See also: (In US) Deadly Flood Hits New Mexico Mountain Village, Leaves 3 Missing and Homes Swept Away