The US Supreme Court’s recent decision to curb the use of universal injunctions marks a seismic moment in the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch. While public perception centered on a controversial executive order about birthright citizenship, its implications extend far beyond immigration policy.
The high court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA raises fundamental questions about how, and whether, federal courts can protect constitutional rights across the country at a time when the executive branch continues to challenge the judiciary.
This is why we joined Keep Our Republic’s Article III Coalition. As retired federal judges, we are no longer constrained by judicial limitations that rightly govern those still on the bench. That independence allows us to speak plainly: The courts must remain capable of checking executive overreach, and the public must understand that judges are not political actors but constitutional guardians.
The implications of this decision concern what makes our judiciary distinct. Federal judges are not short-term actors swayed by political tides; they are appointed for lifetime terms by elected presidents and confirmed by elected senators. As retired judges, we understand the solemnity and limits of judicial power, but we also know that life tenure is not a flaw; it is a constitutional design feature. Lifetime tenure enables judges to render decisions based on law and principle, not politics or popularity. They serve not at the pleasure of any one leader, but on behalf of the American public, as a coequal branch charged with upholding the Constitution independently and impartially.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the six-justice majority, reasoned that lower federal courts lack the authority to issue “universal” relief, asserting that individual judges are empowered to grant relief only to the specific plaintiffs before them, regardless of the blatant unconstitutionality of the executive branch’s action.
Dissenting justices, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, countered that in cases involving flagrant constitutional violations, limiting relief only to named plaintiffs leaves untold numbers of our fellow Americans vulnerable and without real recourse. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome, one thing is clear: The debate illustrates the delicate balance of power among our coequal branches of government.
The effect of eliminating nationwide injunctions isn’t merely procedural—it’s practical. In the face of unconstitutional policies, courts have historically served as bulwarks of liberty, offering immediate, national relief to prevent widespread harm. Without this tool, we may now face a future in which the law is applied inconsistently and justice, thus delayed, is denied. For example, a blatantly unconstitutional policy or law, temporarily paused in Maryland, remains fully enforceable against identically situated persons in, say, Mississippi, or other states, until courts in countless other judicial districts have weighed in. This judicial patchwork doesn’t strengthen the rule of law; it obstructs it and even threatens to unravel it, leaving constitutional injuries unaddressed.
Additionally, public trust in the judiciary is already at historic lows. According to Gallup and Pew Research, confidence in the federal courts has plummeted to record levels. The public increasingly views judges as ideological partisans rather than impartial arbiters. Some assume that nationwide injunctions only deepen this perception. Yet when access to legal remedies hinges not on constitutional principle but on geography, the result is an uneven justice system that erodes faith in the rule of law.
To be sure, nationwide injunctions have been controversial. Critics argue they encourage forum-shopping and politicize the judiciary, but courts have often issued broad relief, when necessary, to protect constitutional rights, particularly during moments of national upheaval. Now, litigants will endeavor to find alternative means to challenge policies nationwide. Congress, of course, also has the power to legislate on this issue. Regardless, the challenge will be to ensure any future relief is granted with restraint, rooted in the law, and subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny by higher courts.
Today’s climate is remarkably different from when we first donned our robes. Judges aren’t only being second-guessed, they are being threatened, investigated, and in some cases, targeted for impeachment simply for ruling against the government. These attacks don’t merely chill judicial independence—they imperil the very concept.
When judicial independence is undermined, whether by executive retaliation, legislative threats, or public misunderstanding, our democracy weakens. As we wrap up celebrations of our Independence Day, we remind Americans that judges are neither kings, nor political pawns. They are constitutional umpires, like in America’s favorite pastime, calling balls and strikes as they see them, their strike zone bounded by precedent and principle.
The Supreme Court’s decision may limit one judicial tool, but it also calls us to reaffirm our commitment to an independent judiciary that serves every person, in every state, and under our Constitution.
As two former federal judges appointed by presidents from different political parties, one a Democrat, one a Republican, we are coming together united by a common belief in the Constitution and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary.
The case is Trump v. CASA, US, No. 24a884, decided 6/27/25.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
Andre Davis is a former federal judge for the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, appointed by President Barack Obama.
Paul Michel is a former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
To contact the editors responsible for this story: