6 Policies That Could Be Affected by Supreme Court’s Decision on Nationwide Injunctions

 

 

6 Policies That Could Be Affected by Supreme Court’s Decision on Nationwide Injunctions

 

The Supreme Court said universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”

 

6/29/2025

By Joseph Lord

Reprinted from The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court on June 27 handed down a decision restricting federal judges’ ability to impose nationwide injunctions against executive policies, a ruling that was immediately hailed by President Donald Trump as a win for his administration.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, writing, “These injunctions—known as ‘universal injunctions’—likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
In comments at a White House press conference, Trump praised the decision as “amazing.”

“This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law,” Trump said.

The decision comes as judicial injunctions—which can sometimes take the form of prohibitions on a specific policy or federal goal—have threatened Trump’s ability to execute a series of policies pursued by his administration.

Here are six policies that could be affected by the ruling.

Funding for Sanctuary Cities

In February, a federal judge in San Francisco blocked implementation of an executive order targeting federal funding for “sanctuary cities,” a term for cities that flout federal immigration law and refuse to assist federal agents in enforcing immigration law.

The judge at the time said this push violated the 10th Amendment by imposing “coercive conditions intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law.”

After Trump signed the order, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a directive in February for implementing the funding cut.
“To protect the American people from the effects of unlawful mass migration, President Trump has prioritized securing our Nation’s borders and enforcing federal immigration laws,” the directive read. “In furtherance of that objective, the Department of Justice will ensure that, consistent with law, ’sanctuary jurisdictions’ do not receive access to Federal funds from the Department.”

Voter ID

Trump could also now be able to push ahead with a stalled effort to overhaul U.S. election law through an executive order that would require states to impose stronger voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements.

“The United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote,” the order said.

It was halted by federal judges in Massachusetts and Washington after 19 states sued.

$3 Trillion Funding Freeze

Another policy that could be affected was an effort by Trump to freeze upward of $3 trillion in funding and grants to states while they were reviewed for alignment with the administration’s goals and policies.

Twenty-three states sued to block the policy. They were granted favorable rulings, which the government has appealed, by federal judges in Washington and Rhode Island.

The attempted funding freeze comes as part of Trump’s larger effort to reduce federal spending and ensure that such spending aligns with the goals of his administration.

Public School DEI Programs

Another policy that could now be permitted to move ahead centers around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools.

The administration, through the Department of Education, has ordered public schools to end such programs or risk losing their share of about $75 billion in federal public school funding.

Judges in three jurisdictions—New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington—blocked the effort.

Taxpayer Transgender Funding

Another policy that could be back in play is an effort by Trump to block federal funding for medical providers who perform transgender-related procedures on minors.

In a Jan. 28 executive order, Trump said that the United States “will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ’transition’ of a child from one sex to another,” defining “child” as any individual 18 years old or younger.
A Baltimore-based federal judge placed an injunction on enforcing the policy in March.

USAID Funding

Finally, the Supreme Court decision could permit Trump to move ahead with his administration’s efforts to effectively end the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and wrap the agency into the State Department.

USAID has been accused of using U.S. taxpayer funding to advance progressive causes domestically and internationally. Trump froze nearly $2 billion for the government body early in his term.

A Washington judge ordered Trump to resume the payments.