The Supreme Court just handed down a major decision limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions —those sweeping orders that block federal policies across the entire country, even when only a few plaintiffs are involved. [i]
U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said that 35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against Trump's policies came from only five district courts. [ii] This means that the vast majority of injunctions were the clear byproduct of forum shopping to get an extremist judge to shut down the entire government from implementing: safety, progress, civil rights, less crime, and immigration reform. [iii]
Additionally, there is a further stain on liberal judges because 64 new injunctions were issued against Trump policies with 92.2 percent of the recent injunctions created by Democrat leaning appointed judges. [iv]
As a young lawyer, I used to go have lunch with all of the district judges in downtown New Orleans. The judges were very smart and very opinionated, but all seemed dedicated to due process.
My father served on that court, but in 213 years, the Easter District of Louisiana in New Orleans which is the location of the US Appeals court has not issued any national injunction that I know of. Today the Eastern District has 9 active district judges currently serving, 6 senior district judges (retired from active status but still hearing cases, and 5 full-time magistrate judges. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, headquartered in New Orleans, also has 17 active judgeships. [v] However, in the last 20 years, the recent national injunctions issued by democrat appointed judges has become a delusional attempt to obstruct all constructive activity by the executive branch.
Further, nationwide injunctions have become an extreme tool of left-wing insanity this year with Trump’s reelection by a landslide in 2024. The sad news about these judicial opinions is that it is an obvious judicial retaliation which only hurts citizens who are: losing their jobs, getting killed by poison drugs, losing their health care, or being victims of violent crime and murder.
That has created a quandary. For example, most everyone agrees that they do not want a random district judge in a place like Wyoming or South West Louisiana putting a national injunction on New Yorkers that affects all of Wall Street. In the same vein, most of the judicial attacks were designed to stop Trump from implementing public safety, enforcing immigration, cutting waste and fraud, protecting civil rights of citizens, limiting vaccine mandates etc.
Here’s what happened to the Left Wing injunctions:
The Case The ruling stemmed from a challenge to President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. Lower courts had blocked the order nationwide, prompting the administration to appeal.
The Decision In a 6–3 ruling, the Court said that federal district courts exceeded their authority and territory by issuing injunctions that applied beyond the plaintiffs in the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts should only grant relief that is necessary to protect the rights of the actual plaintiffs—not the entire nation.
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett wrote.
What This Means
· No more universal injunctions: Judges can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless the case is a relevant certified class action.
· Relief is now plaintiff-specific: Injunctions must be tailored to the individuals or entities who actually sued.
· Future litigation will be fragmented: Expect more regionally confined rulings and possibly conflicting outcomes across jurisdictions.
This decision reshapes the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive—especially in politically charged cases.
The Supreme Court’s June 27, 2025 ruling restricting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges could significantly impact several key Trump administration policies that were previously blocked in court.
· One major policy involves the proposed $3 trillion freeze on federal funding to states pending a review of alignment with federal priorities, which had been halted by judges in Washington and Rhode Island.
· The administration’s push to defund public school Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs—by threatening to withhold $75 billion in federal education funding—was also previously enjoined by courts in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington but may now move forward.
· Similarly, Trump’s executive order blocking federal funding for transgender-related procedures for minors, which was stalled by a Baltimore judge, could be reinstated.
· The Court’s ruling could also allow the administration to proceed with dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and merging its functions into the State Department—a plan previously derailed by a federal injunction.
· Finally, two of the most high-profile blocked efforts—cutting off federal funds to sanctuary cities that defy immigration enforcement and implementing stricter voter ID and citizenship verification rules—may now be revived as the legal landscape shifts in favor of executive authority.
Overall, obstructing safe policies for Americans only gets people killed or hurt when there are untold numbers of migrant murderers and child molesters. Trump may have already deported 20,000 known violent murderers and rapists and child molesters already this year as crime rates are down huge this year.
In the first quarter of 2025, homicide rates dropped significantly across several major U.S. cities, with Chandler, Arizona reporting a 50% decrease, Little Rock, Arkansas seeing a 43% decline, New York City recording a 34.4% drop—one of the lowest in its history—while Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans each saw declines around 50%, and Denver leading the trend with a remarkable 58% reduction.
Thus, given that public officers have a duty to protect citizens and warn them of impending harm, these judges using injunctions to keep known violent offenders, may be putting themselves at risk of losing their immunity and being prosecuted or sued civilly for getting women and children either killed, raped, or molested.
While everyone wants immigrants to have some form of due process such as when the USA gave Haitians due process as soon as they landed on the shores, but there are no due process rights for known criminals that have escaped their home country and are hiding here in the USA or committing further atrocities. [vi]
Class actions may still be brought involving thousands of people across multiple states, and such cases remain capable of producing injunctions that offer relief to a broad class of individuals.
\However, the Supreme Court's ruling serves as a clear warning to lower courts: class action certification should not be used as a loophole to issue what are effectively nationwide injunctions in disguise. Courts are expected to ensure that class actions are properly certified and not misused as an 'end-run' around the constitutional and statutory limits on judicial power.
The Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down the widespread use of nationwide injunctions marks a historic restoration of judicial restraint and constitutional order. In recent years, a handful of ideologically motivated district judges wielded outsized influence, halting federal policies for the entire country without regard for due process, separation of powers, citizen safety, or geographic jurisdiction.
This decision reestablishes the foundational principle that courts may only grant relief to the parties before them, not legislate from the bench. With this correction, executive authority can once again function without being paralyzed by activist rulings that served narrow political interests.
More importantly, this protects the rights of all citizens to benefit from lawful national policy without sabotage from rogue judges. As the balance of power shifts back toward the executive and legislative branches, Americans can expect a resurgence of coherent, nationwide policy implementation—one no longer vulnerable to obstruction by a single courtroom with a political agenda. [vii]
_______________
Commissioner George Mentz JD MBA CILS CWM® is the first in the USA to rank as a Top 50 Influencer & Thought Leader in: Management, PM, HR, FinTech, Wealth Management, and B2B according to Onalytica.com and Thinkers360.com. George Mentz JD MBA CILS is a CWM Chartered Wealth Manager ®, global speaker - educator, tax-economist, international lawyer and CEO of the GAFM Global Academy of Finance & Management ®. The GAFM is a EU accredited graduate body that trains and certifies professionals in 150+ nations under standards of the: US Dept of Education, ACBSP, ISO 21001, ISO 991, ISO 29993, QAHE, ECLBS, and ISO 29990 standards. Mentz is also an award-winning author and award winning graduate law professor of wealth management of one of the top 30 ranked law schools in the USA.Mentzenborg is just a term of art to describe the theory and process by George Mentz JD MBA ChE. CWM is for Chartered Wealth Manager ® and ChE Chartered Economist ® is a credential for economics professionals.
[i] SCOTUS Ends District Court Ability to Issue Nationwide Injunction
[ii] Supreme Court limits judges' ability to block Trump's birthright citizenship ban
[iii] FORUM SHOPPING Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal
[iv] Nationwide Injunctions: A hot topic you won’t debate in dinner-time conversations | Constitution Center
[v] Eastern District of Louisiana | United States District Court
[vi] Under the “wet foot, dry foot” policy, which was in effect from 1995 to 2017, Cuban nationals who reached U.S. soil (“dry foot”) were generally allowed to stay and apply for legal residency , while those intercepted at sea (“wet foot”) were returned to Cuba.
[vii] Supreme Court in birthright case limits judges' power to block presidential policies | Reuters