Senator Kennedy Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, Criticizes Jackson’s Dissent

Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) voiced strong support this week for a landmark Supreme Court decision that significantly curtails the use of nationwide injunctions—broad legal orders issued by lower courts that can block federal policies across the entire country. In a fiery interview on Fox News’ Faulkner Focus, Kennedy described the ruling as a long-overdue correction to what he sees as judicial overreach.

The 6–3 decision, issued by the high court earlier this week, arose from a case involving disputes over birthright citizenship. But its implications extend well beyond immigration. The justices ruled that lower federal courts do not have the authority to impose sweeping injunctions that apply beyond the immediate parties involved in a case. Instead, legal challenges should be resolved in a more limited, case-specific manner—preserving the scope of judicial power within constitutional boundaries.

A Constitutional Course Correction

Kennedy, a former attorney and outspoken member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised the ruling as a win for both the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers.

“The Supreme Court has tossed universal injunctions into the legal dustbin, where they belong,” Kennedy said. “There’s no constitutional or historical basis for them. Not in statute. Not in Supreme Court precedent. Not even in English common law.”

According to Kennedy, nationwide injunctions have enabled individual judges—sometimes appointed by presidents decades ago—to block federal policies for the entire nation, often based on personal or ideological objections.

“These rulings gave unelected judges the power to shut down laws and policies supported by a majority of Americans,” he argued. “And they just made them up. Judges took powers they were never given. It’s not how the system is supposed to work.”

Sharp Critique of Justice Jackson’s Dissent

Kennedy also took aim at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who authored a dissenting opinion opposing the majority’s position. Jackson warned that the decision could limit the ability of courts to provide full relief to those harmed by unconstitutional government actions, and potentially embolden executive overreach.

Kennedy dismissed those concerns and didn’t hold back in his assessment.

“Justice Jackson’s dissent is about as fiery as they come,” he said. “She’s mad as a bag of cats—and honestly, that tells you the majority probably got this one right.”

He went further, adding: “If some folks in the legal world don’t like it, they can fill out a hurt feelings report. Maybe grab a comfort rock. But courts don’t get to invent powers that don’t exist.”

Implications Beyond Immigration

Although the case centered on immigration and birthright citizenship policies from the Trump era, the justices intentionally refrained from ruling directly on that issue. Instead, they focused on the broader legal principle: whether district courts can issue universal injunctions affecting policies nationwide, rather than granting relief only to the plaintiffs in the case.

Kennedy said the implications of the ruling will ripple far beyond immigration law.

“This isn’t just about birthright citizenship or Trump-era policies,” he explained. “It’s about the rule of law. It’s about keeping the courts in their lane and preventing them from becoming super-legislatures.”

He added that the decision could impact future legal battles involving health care mandates, environmental regulations, and executive orders on a range of policy areas.

“The Court just rebalanced the scales a bit,” he said. “Now we’re back to a system where judges decide cases, not national policy.”

A Deepening Divide on the Court

The ruling highlighted the ongoing ideological divide on the Supreme Court. The conservative majority emphasized judicial restraint and deference to the political branches of government. Meanwhile, the liberal justices raised alarms about weakening the judiciary’s ability to check executive power and protect constitutional rights.

Despite the divide, Kennedy called the ruling a necessary step toward restoring trust in the judicial system.

“Judges should not be acting like mini-presidents with the power to stop national policy with a single ruling,” he said. “People elect presidents and members of Congress to make the hard decisions. That’s how a republic works.”

Future Legal Battles Ahead

While supporters of the decision say it will help prevent judicial activism and protect democratic processes, critics warn that it could limit access to meaningful legal remedies, especially for vulnerable communities.

Legal scholars on both sides agree, however, that the ruling marks a turning point in how the judiciary engages with executive power. With the door now closed to sweeping nationwide injunctions, future lawsuits against federal actions may take a more targeted approach—potentially leading to a patchwork of rulings across jurisdictions.

Still, for Kennedy and many conservatives, the Supreme Court’s decision is a clear signal: judicial authority has limits, and restoring those limits is essential to maintaining the constitutional order.

“This ruling is about respect—respect for the Constitution, for the people, and for the roles each branch of government is supposed to play,” Kennedy concluded.