US Supreme Court shifts balance toward executive power Opinion Piece by Bloomberg

In a closely watched 6-3 ruling that split along ideological lines, the US Supreme Court has ended the longstanding practice of universal injunctions — a legal tool that allowed lower courts to block the enforcement of government policies across the entire country. An opinion piece by Bloomberg critically examines the decision, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and raises important concerns about its implications for the balance of power among the branches of government. Though the ruling appears to favour the executive branch, especially in the short term, it may not be as final or damaging to judicial authority as it first seems.

Universal injunctions have been a key instrument for lower federal courts to halt executive actions deemed unconstitutional. These court orders gained prominence when judges used them to stop the implementation of a range of policies that were often seen as legally or constitutionally questionable. This recent Supreme Court decision, however, strips that power from lower courts, narrowing their ability to issue rulings with nationwide effect.

Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, anchored her reasoning in “originalism” — a judicial philosophy that interprets the US Constitution according to its meaning at the time it was adopted. She argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the earliest American laws, did not envision such sweeping authority for federal courts, citing 18th-century English legal practice, where no equivalent to universal injunctions existed.

Critics of originalism, including the Bloomberg author, argue that this reasoning is out of step with modern legal and political realities. The US judiciary has evolved significantly since the 18th century. Since the landmark Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, American courts have had the explicit power to strike down unconstitutional laws and executive actions — a role English courts at the time did not share.

Given this context, critics ask: if a law is unconstitutional in one court’s jurisdiction, why should it remain enforceable elsewhere in the country?

The dissenting justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — took strong issue with the majority’s logic. They warned that removing the power of universal injunctions could enable presidents to continue enforcing clearly unlawful policies in parts of the country where no ruling has yet been made, thus undermining the rule of law. As an example, the article points to Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move that the dissenters argued was plainly unconstitutional.

Beyond its philosophical objections, the article also challenges Barrett’s interpretation of the Judiciary Act itself. In English law, injunctions fell under the authority of courts of equity, designed to add flexibility to the rigid system of common law. By giving American courts similar equity powers, the Act arguably intended to preserve that adaptability — not restrict it. Barrett’s opinion, the article argues, contradicts that spirit by treating equity as inflexible.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s decision does leave room for alternative legal avenues that may have a similar effect to universal injunctions. Barrett’s opinion suggests that lower courts can still use class-action lawsuits to represent large groups of similarly affected people. Courts could also act in cases brought by US states on behalf of their citizens — both mechanisms that could potentially result in rulings with nationwide implications.

That these options remain unsettled was enough to concern Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote a separate opinion arguing that neither should be permitted — a sign that internal disagreements persist even among the conservative justices. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasised that the Supreme Court can still set national precedent by reviewing lower court decisions, meaning it retains the authority to block unconstitutional actions countrywide.

Yet, as the article notes, for Kavanaugh’s reassurance to carry weight, the Court must become more transparent and thorough in its rulings, particularly in emergency cases where it has recently offered little or no explanation for its decisions.

In the end, this decision highlights a deeper tension within American constitutional law — one between the need for executive accountability and the limits of judicial authority. While Jackson accused the majority of enabling authoritarian governance, Barrett countered that Jackson’s approach risked creating an “imperial judiciary.” In truth, both arguments reflect legitimate fears.

By Sabina Mammadli