The alarm bell rang when a judge blocked the president's policy nationwide. Should a judge exert so much power? Can they stop policies across the country in a quick preliminary study of whether it is possible to be illegal? The Supreme Court is now facing these key issues.

At a lively meeting on May 15, 2025, the Justice’s question sometimes interrupts the lawyers who appear before them, the Supreme Court heard the argument in President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending the provisions of the 14-amendment to the Constitution, which illustrates all children born in the United States, which are granted to U.S. citizens.

Although the basic litigation involves birthright citizenship, the direct question raised by the court is about the legal tool of the “national preliminary injunction.” This allows a federal judge to temporarily stop the presidential policies of the entire country - even before fully considering whether those policies are constitutional.

Three judges prevented the president from trying to deny the lack of law to give birth citizenship to babies born to mothers who live in the United States permanently. It was the Trump administration’s appeals to those injunctions filed before judges before May 15 that the administration asserted that “universal injunctions undermine the executive’s ability to perform its functions” and that federal judges violated the Constitution.

The Justice also addressed a key question: When deciding whether or not to issue these temporary obstacles, should a policy be considered whether it is possible that it is constitutional? The National Immigration Law Center, which supports the use of the national ban, wrote in a document filed with the court that the request to approve the government's ban on such bans "will face illegal administrative litigation, tie the judiciary's hands to the judiciary."

What exactly are these bans and why are they important to everyday Americans?

Direct, irreparable damage

When presidents try to make significant changes by executing orders, they often face obstacles: A federal judge, whether in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, can prevent these policies from being nationwide.

These court orders are increasingly becoming a political battlefield, with Republicans and Democrats increasingly seeking to oppose the presidential policy they oppose.

While the Trump administration requires the Supreme Court to limit the power of judges to issue preliminary national bans, Congress has also held hearings on reducing judges’ ability to issue bans.

When the government creates a policy that may violate the Constitution or federal law, the affected people can sue in federal court. Although these lawsuits gradually play a role in the court, which usually takes years, judges can issue what is called a “preliminary injunction” to temporarily suspend the policy if they determine that it may immediately cause irreparable harm.

A “national” ban (sometimes referred to as “universal” ban) further prevents everyone’s policies across the country, not just the person who filed the lawsuit.

Importantly, these bans are designed to be temporary. They just keep the status quo until the court can fully review the merits of the case. But in reality, litigation proceeds so slowly that when successor governments abandon policies, administrative litigation that is blocked by courts often expires.

More execution commands, more bans

A nationwide ban is nothing new, but there are several things that make them more controversial lately.

First, because Congress is divided and polarized, rarely passing major legislation, the president relies more on executing orders to accomplish substantive things. This creates more opportunities to challenge presidential action in court.

Second, attorneys who want to challenge these orders get better at “judge shopping” – bringing cases in areas where they may attract judges who agree with clients’ opinions.

Third, with the growing political sector, both sides aim to use these bans more actively when the other side controls the White House.

Influence the real people

These legal struggles have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.

DACA, a childhood extension action in the form of DACA, the program protects approximately 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For more than a decade, these young immigrants have been facing uncertainty.

That's because a Texas judge blocked the expansion through a national ban when President Barack Obama created DACA in 2012 and tried to expand it in 2015 through an executive order. Judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked the move when Trump tried to end the DACA. The plan and its legal challenges continue under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces ongoing legal challenges in the constitutionality of the DACA program.

Recently, judges have used a national ban to block several of Donald Trump’s policies.

While much of the current debate is focused on presidential policy, a nationwide ban has also prevented Congress from legislating.

The Company Transparency Act was passed in 2021 and was originally scheduled to come into effect in 2024, and will combat financial crimes by requiring companies to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge blocked the law in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.

In early 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it would not be enforced at all - showing how these legal struggles became political power struggles.

Excessive power or necessary protection?

Some critics say the nationwide ban gives too much power to a single judge. If a lawyer can choose a judge to hear the case, this can raise serious questions about fairness.

Supporters believe that these bans can protect important rights. For example, in citizenship cases, there is no national injunction, no law to permanently reside in mothers born in some states rather than citizens of other states, rather than others - this is impossible.

Congress is considering legislation to limit the ability of judges to grant a national ban.

The Trump administration also tries to make challenging its policies in court expensive and difficult to challenge. In March 2025, Trump ordered administration lawyers to ask anyone seeking the ban to demand large amounts of cash deposits (called "safety margin"). Although these bonds are already part of existing court rules, judges usually set them to several hundred dollars, or abandon them altogether when people raise constitutional questions.

Under the new policy, critics fear that “plaintiffs prosecuting the government may be forced to raise huge amounts of money to conduct the case.”

Another way to address single judges’ concerns about lockdown government action is to ask a panel of three judges to hear cases involving a national ban, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how the court handles major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

My research on this topic shows that the three judges are less likely to make partisan decisions together while still being able to protect constitutional rights if necessary. Today’s technology also makes it easier for judges from different locations to collaborate, than decades ago.

As the Supreme Court weighs in this debate, the results will affect how the president enforces policies and how much power individual judges must block them. Although this may seem like a technical legal issue, it will affect how the government works in the coming years and the lives of those living in the United States

This is an updated version of the story originally released on April 3, 2025.