**Supreme Court SMACKS DOWN Rogue Judges Blocking Trump**

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court decisively struck down attempts by lower courts to impose universal injunctions that effectively blocked President Trump’s executive orders on citizenship. The ruling, delivered in a tense 6-3 vote, underscores a significant rebuke to what the majority termed “imperial judiciary” overreach, asserting that federal courts have no authority to issue injunctions affecting parties not directly involved in a case.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, condemned the trend of district courts issuing sweeping injunctions that halt federal policies nationwide. “The judiciary does not possess unbridled authority to enforce the law universally,” Barrett stated, emphasizing that such actions undermine the foundational principles of American governance. The ruling specifically addresses the contentious issue of 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡right citizenship, a hot-button topic in the ongoing immigration debate.

The dissenting opinions, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, painted a dire picture of a judicial system that could allow the executive branch to operate without checks, warning that the ruling creates a “zone of lawlessness.” Jackson argued that the courts must maintain their role in enforcing adherence to the law, particularly against executive actions perceived as unlawful.

This ruling comes at a critical juncture, as the Supreme Court grapples with the balance of power among the branches of government. The implications are profound: lower courts can no longer issue blanket injunctions that halt government actions affecting millions, a practice that critics argue has led to chaotic legal landscapes and judicial forum shopping.

As the nation watches closely, this decision may reshape the future of executive power and judicial authority, igniting fierce debates across the political spectrum. The Supreme Court’s message is clear: the judiciary must remain a body of law, not a source of unilateral power. With this ruling, the Court has set a precedent that could redefine the boundaries of judicial intervention in executive actions for years to come.