The Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on June 27 that effectively restrained judges’ ability to issue sweeping orders blocking the president’s policies. Known as nationwide injunctions, the number of orders has exploded in frequency, with a particular spike under President Donald Trump.

At a more practical level, the decision temporarily halted three nationwide blocks on Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who delivered the decision of the court, qualified that it was intended to halt the injunctions only “to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”

The judges who issued those orders are expected to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s latest decision. Ultimately, their orders could wind up back at the Supreme Court, as could a deeper debate about the constitutionality of Trump’s policy on birthright citizenship.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, wrestled with how to proceed after the Supreme Court’s decision, which halted implementation of Trump’s birthright restrictions for 30 days. Other aspects of the executive order that were not blocked include the administration’s ability to issue guidance and craft policy in anticipation of a block being removed. Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg told Boardman that his understanding of the Supreme Court decision was that the administration couldn’t deport babies of illegal immigrants during the 30-day period set up by Barrett.

However, it refrained from deciding whether Article 3 of the Constitution, which generally outlines federal courts’ authority, allows judges to issue such orders. Article 3 has been cited by Republicans and was used by the Trump administration to argue against the injunctions on birthright citizenship.

Regardless, Barrett’s majority opinion indicates that nationwide injunctions do not align with how courts have operated in both the United States and the UK.

Premium Picks

Trump Calls Supreme Court Decision on Nationwide Injunctions ‘A Giant Win’

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin, Limits Nationwide Injunctions

One of the blocks on Trump’s policy came from a case known as CASA Inc. v. Trump, which involved two organizations and pregnant women suing the administration. Barrett said in that case, courts may provide relief by blocking Trump’s policy, as it affects the women who sued.

“Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render [the women’s] relief any more complete,” she said.

But the court was not just handling that case. It was also weighing in on two nationwide injunctions issued in cases brought by states. Those cases were more complicated, Barrett said, as the courts issued nationwide orders because they thought that doing so would provide the states themselves relief.

For example, District Judge John Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” because plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states.

Both Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh issued concurrences indicating that courts could provide broad relief through something known as class certification. In those situations, courts may issue orders affecting a group of people represented by individuals who actually brought the lawsuits.

“Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party standing and class certification would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision,” he said.

However, it is clear from her opinion that she thinks that judges should exercise restraint in how they block executive branch policies.

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett wrote. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

The underlying cases focus on whether Trump violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court said the provision meant that a man born to lawful residents of the United States was a citizen. According to Justice Sonia Sotomayor and others, that case settled the issue, but Trump disagreed.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor said.

She noted that while birthright citizenship might be under threat today, “tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

Because the majority decision limited relief to parties before the court, it rendered “constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit,” Sotomayor said.

Jackson, meanwhile, described the majority’s decision as “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Her separate dissent suggested that Barrett had focused too much on history and not enough on broader and more basic principles, such as whether the judiciary can stop unlawful behavior.

“The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,” she said.

At one point, Barrett wrote that Jackson’s position was “difficult to pin down.” After briefly discussing Jackson’s dissent, Barrett stated that the majority “will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”

At another point, the opinion contrasts Jackson’s approach with Sotomayor’s. While the latter grappled with things such as the Judiciary Act and court precedent, Jackson chose “a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,” Barrett wrote.