In a landmark June 27, 2025 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions. In the case Trump v. Casa, the Court ruled that federal district courts do not have the authority to block the enforcement of executive orders for the entire country unless every affected person is part of the lawsuit.
The case centered around President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which challenged the meaning of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. But the ruling didn’t actually address the citizenship issue – instead, it focused on a more technical question with wide-ranging implications: can a court stop a federal policy for everyone, or just the plaintiffs in the case?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, said that “universal injunctions” go beyond what Congress allows. She pointed to the Judiciary Act of 1789, noting that equitable relief in early American courts, like those in England, was always limited to the parties involved. As Barrett wrote, there’s no historical support for courts blocking national policies across the board. The Court allowed the injunctions to remain in place only for the plaintiffs in the three related cases that challenged Trump’s order.
William Kirk: “The Real Constitutional Crisis Was the Courts”
William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, responded swiftly in a recent video. He called the decision a necessary check on what he sees as judicial overreach. “The real constitutional crisis,” Kirk said, “is when Article III courts start stepping into the shoes of Article II powers.” He criticized district courts in liberal-leaning states like California, New York, and Maryland for issuing 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration.
Kirk noted that these courts were not ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright order itself, but were using their position to halt his agenda on a national level. According to Kirk, the Supreme Court rightly drew a line, stating that complete relief for plaintiffs does not equal blanket relief for everyone in the country.
No More Shortcuts – Class Actions Required
A key point emphasized both in the Court’s opinion and by Kirk is that if plaintiffs want to challenge an executive order for everyone, they must now file a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The big winner here is the class action lawyer,” Kirk joked, while also warning that the certification process under Rule 23 is strict. Plaintiffs must prove that the group is large, cohesive, and that common legal issues apply across the board.
Justice Barrett explained that universal injunctions sidestep these procedural rules, offering sweeping relief without the necessary legal groundwork. From now on, the path to nationwide relief will be slower, more complex, and more expensive.
Sotomayor Warns of Dangerous Precedent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, voiced concerns echoed by legal analyst Danny Cevallos on MSNBC. Both suggested that the ruling could set the stage for future abuse, especially by executive branches that ignore constitutional rights. Sotomayor warned that limiting judicial relief only to named plaintiffs may weaken the courts’ ability to check executive overreach in real time. Cevallos extended the warning further: what happens when a future administration, perhaps a far-left one, uses executive orders to go after the Second Amendment?
“What if the next president says, ‘We’re collecting all the guns, starting tomorrow?’” Cevallos asked. In that case, Americans would likely rush to court, but now, with this new precedent, a single district judge could only shield the person or group who filed the suit. Everyone else would have to sue individually or wait for a class to be certified – a process that could take months or years.
Is Gun Confiscation Now Easier to Attempt?
This is where things get unnerving. As Kirk points out in his video, this ruling, though a win for constitutional balance now, could turn into a nightmare for gun owners later. Imagine a president signing an executive order that bans AR-15s or high-capacity magazines under the guise of “public safety.” In the past, a judge might issue a nationwide injunction to block enforcement of that order. Now, they can’t – unless there’s a certified class.
This means the first gun owner to file suit might get relief, but everyone else would have to follow suit. “We’re going to have to slug through dozens and dozens of lawsuits before we can actually obtain the remedy,” Kirk warned. The system just got a whole lot slower at stopping potential rights violations.
Barrett’s Blistering Takedown of Justice Jackson
One of the more dramatic elements of the case wasn’t just the ruling – it was Justice Barrett’s sharp response to fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. In a rare show of open criticism on the bench, Barrett called Jackson’s argument “tethered neither to [legal] sources nor to any doctrine whatsoever.” She accused Jackson of “waving away attention to the limits on judicial power” and said her position would make “even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”
Kirk found this exchange fascinating, noting that Barrett came “this close to just calling her a freaking idiot.” While that’s blunt, it captures the mood of the majority justices who felt Jackson was trying to elevate courts above both Congress and the president – something they saw as a direct threat to constitutional order.
Raw Story Raises the Alarm
In a piece for Raw Story, journalist Tom Boggioni covered legal expert Danny Cevallos’ fears that this decision could “open the door for the government to grab guns.” His analysis is simple but chilling: if courts can’t stop executive action broadly and quickly, what happens when the government acts fast and aggressively? Cevallos warned that under a left-leaning administration, Second Amendment rights could be suspended via executive order, and opponents would face a long, uphill legal slog to undo it.
Boggioni’s reporting shows the darker flip side of this ruling. While conservatives may celebrate a win for Trump today, progressives may use the same legal pathway to strip gun rights tomorrow.
Historical Tradition Matters – Until It Doesn’t
The majority leaned hard on history. They argued that courts in the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t issue sweeping injunctions. But times have changed. Executive power has grown, federal agencies affect every corner of American life, and a slow judicial process could give modern presidents dangerous breathing room to enforce harmful policies before the courts catch up.
The Court’s insistence on sticking to “traditional equitable relief” may sound noble, but it could create real gaps in legal protection for millions of Americans.
The Power Shift: From Courts Back to the Executive
What the Supreme Court really did in Trump v. Casa was shift the balance of power. It told federal judges: “You don’t get to stop the whole train. You can only pull the brakes for one passenger at a time.” That means the executive branch, whichever party holds it, has more momentum and fewer roadblocks, at least in the short term.
This should make everyone nervous. Whether you lean left or right, history shows us that unchecked executive power eventually gets abused. Courts were often the last firewall. This ruling removes that firewall for many.
This Ruling Cuts Both Ways
Let’s be real, this decision is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it stops activist judges from blocking a president’s entire agenda just because they disagree with it politically. That’s good for democracy. On the other hand, it also weakens the public’s fastest legal defense against unconstitutional orders.
If you’re a gun owner, think about this: when the next executive order tries to chip away at your rights, you won’t have a court blocking it for everyone. You’ll have to sue. One by one. That’s a dangerous game of legal whack-a-mole.
Now What? The Future of Civil Liberties Is Slower and Riskier
The Supreme Court has spoken. District courts can no longer halt federal policy nationwide unless a class is certified. That makes every legal battle harder. Whether the issue is guns, speech, citizenship, or mandates, expect more lawsuits, more delays, and more confusion.
For now, Trump’s team gets to keep enforcing Executive Order 14160 against most people. But the precedent set here will ripple far beyond citizenship. The next time an executive action threatens the Second Amendment, don’t expect a court to shield you unless you’re holding the lawsuit.
A Win With a Warning Label
The Trump v. Casa ruling is a legal earthquake. Justice Barrett’s opinion returned power to the executive and took a shot at judicial overreach. William Kirk sees it as a constitutional course correction. Tom Boggioni and Danny Cevallos see a looming threat to gun rights. And Justice Jackson? She thinks the judiciary just surrendered its role as a check on tyranny.
Whichever side you’re on, one thing is clear: the game has changed. And if confiscation orders ever come, the legal road to stop them just got a lot steeper.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.