A tense legal battle recently reached its peak, not through courtroom drama, but via a pointed interview and a fiery dissent. At its heart: the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision narrowing the scope of “universal injunctions”—a ruling that drew cheers from some quarters, ire from others, and unexpectedly personal comments from Louisiana’s Sen. John Kennedy.
1. What Happened: The Supreme Court Ruling
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6–3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. rejecting the wide use of “universal injunctions” by lower courts—those sweeping judicial orders that block federal policies nationwide, not just for those directly involved in a lawsuit. Cheerleader-in-chief? Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority. In her view, such nationwide entanglements exceed judges’ delegated authority.
Instead, Barrett argued:
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” YouTubesupremecourt.gov+3The New Yorker+3New York Post+3Northeastern Global News
A sharp rebuttal was mounted by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, condemning the decision as a threat to the judiciary’s role in defending constitutional rights. Jackson’s blistering dissent branded the ruling “mad as a bag of cats” and warned it would leave individuals across the country legally vulnerable. AOL+2The Grio+2AOL+2
2. Birthright Citizenship: The Catalyst Case
Although the Court focused solely on procedural limits, the ruling emerged from a high-stakes dispute: Trump’s 2025 executive order restricting automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary-status parents. While the Court didn’t rule on the order’s legality, its procedural ruling gave leeway to the executive branch—allowing temporary, local implementation unless blocked through other means. Condé Nast Traveler
In the wake of CASA, federal courts across the country have pivoted to class-action suits to secure nationwide relief—a tactic illustrated by a recent injunction in New Hampshire. Judge Laplante allowed broader protections via class status, while noting the Supreme Court had constrained blanket courts.
3. Senator Kennedy Weighs In
Enter Senator John Kennedy (R–LA). Appearing on Fox’s Faulkner Focus with Harris Faulkner, Kennedy hailed the SCOTUS ruling as a pivotal correction.
He celebrated:
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food… There’s no basis in statute… English common law…” American Immigration Council+2AOL+2AOL+2
He argued judges were arrogantly overreaching, bypassing Congress and presidential authority. His reaction was unapologetically blunt:
“Good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court.”
And about Justice Jackson’s dissent?
“She’s mad as a bag of cats, and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.” Times Union+15The Grio+15davidlat.substack.com+15
Kennedy framed her dissent as proof the ruling hit the right tone.
4. What Is a Universal Injunction—and Why It Matters
A universal injunction is a judicial order that blocks government action entirely and instantly—nationwide—beyond the parties involved. Think of it as a one-size-fits-all legal freeze on a policy.
Supporters argue these injunctions are vital when a unilateral executive action threatens mass harm. Critics, however, contend they represent judicial overreach, bypassing elected branches and distorting legal process.
Justice Barrett emphasized that judges carry limited authority:
—Only the parties before them can receive relief
—Class actions under Rule 23 offer a lawful alternative Northeastern Global News+2AOL+2davidlat.substack.com+2Northeastern Global News+1kennedy.senate.gov+1Wikipedia+5michigan.law.umich.edu+5Northeastern Global News+5Wikipedia+4supremecourt.gov+4Northeastern Global News+4
Justice Jackson countered that this ruling threatens constitutional rights, undermines stability, and diminishes judicial checks on executive overreach. San Francisco Chronicle+1The New Yorker+1
5. Why the Court Did Not Address Birthright Citizenship
The CASA case centered on procedure, not substance. The Court’s decision sidestepped the constitutionality of the birthright order itself. Instead, the question was purely: Can a single judge block federal policy for all Americans?
Barrett concluded courts should not wield such sweeping power without congressional authority. Jackson warned that limiting judicial reach merely forces plaintiffs into narrower, less effective legal routes.
6. Fallout and the Path Forward
A) For Trump’s Order:
Executive implementation may begin in non-blocked jurisdictions
Many courts are shifting to class-action lawsuits for broader relief American Immigration Council+7FactCheck.org+7The New Yorker+7
