The US Supreme Court granted the government’s stay application in the birthright citizenship case on Friday, limiting the federal courts’ injunctive relief powers to plaintiffs with standing. In its opinion, the court held:

Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.

The Supreme Court found that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine and breaches the powers granted to them under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Universal injunctions improperly intrude on a coordinate branch of government by preventing it from enforcing its policies, the high court found.

Justice Amy Coney-Barrett stated, “When a court concludes the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its powers, too.” Justice Barrett similarly opined that a state enjoined by a court from effectuating policies enacted by representatives of its people suffers irreparable harm. The court wrote that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of this case.

Over the years, the use of universal injunctions has increased along with the importance of this issue to government stakeholders. Congressional members of both parties have raised concerns about the constitutionality of universal injunctions across presidential administrations. However, the issue has become particularly contentious with President Donald Trump, as members of his cabinet have publicly levied concerns of forum shopping and federal courts’ breach of their powers. Here, the court agreed that such injunctions are beyond the scope of federal courts’ powers.

On January 20, Trump issued an executive order denying birthright citizenship to children who were born in the US to parents who were in the country “unlawfully.” Several judges issued nationwide injunctions against the executive order, and the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to halt the nationwide injunctions except as applied to specific plaintiffs and states involved in the lower court decisions.

Friday’s decision does not address whether the executive order violates the Citizenship Clause or the Nationality Act. The government’s application for a partial stay is granted, but only to the extent that they are broader than necessary to provide relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.

Justice Barrett’s opinion for the court was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan, who has previously spoken out against universal injunctions, joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in writing in dissent.