The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 on 27 June to bar federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, a remedy frequently used to halt executive-branch policies. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said such sweeping orders “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” The decision came in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” executive order, which seeks to end birth-right citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants and some temporary-visa holders. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, called the ruling an “existential threat to the rule of law.” In a sharply worded dissent, Jackson argued that curtailing universal injunctions creates “a zone of lawlessness” in which the executive can continue potentially unconstitutional conduct until every affected party files suit. Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana applauded the majority’s opinion during a televised interview, saying the Court had turned universal injunctions “into fish food” and joking that Justice Jackson was “mad as a bag of cats.” Addressing a legal forum on 11 July, Justice Jackson said her dissents are meant to highlight what is happening “in our country and in our government,” adding that she uses opinions to convey her perspective on issues and has a “thick skin” about criticism. Her comments underscored the continuing debate inside and outside the Court over the limits of judicial power and the tone of the bench’s written opinions.