Sen. Kennedy Applauds Supreme Court for Ending Use of Universal Injunctions
Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana voiced his strong support for a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the ability of federal judges to issue broad, nationwide injunctions — a legal tool sometimes used to block presidential actions before cases are fully resolved.
Speaking during an interview on The Faulkner Focus on Fox News, Kennedy praised the Court’s 6–3 ruling, which overturned the use of universal injunctions — decisions that apply to parties not directly involved in a specific lawsuit.
“The Supreme Court has turned universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” said Kennedy, who argued that the legal mechanism lacks support in statutory law, precedent, or even English common law. “Judges who dislike what Congress or the president has done just made them up.”
He pointed specifically to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent as evidence that the ruling had major implications. “She’s mad as a bag of cats,” Kennedy said, referring to the tone of her dissenting opinion. “That’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
Though the case touched on a Trump-era executive order about birthright citizenship, the ruling itself was not about that policy directly. Instead, the Court focused on limiting judicial authority to block government actions nationwide through injunctions before cases are fully litigated.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that federal courts are not designed to serve as broad overseers of executive policy. “Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” she wrote. “They resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”
In her majority opinion, Barrett addressed Jackson’s opposing argument, writing: “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” Barrett stressed that all branches of government — including judges — must operate within legal limits.
Sen. Kennedy also noted that both Democrats and Republicans had made use of universal injunctions over the years, but argued they were never legally sound. “Anybody who knows a law book from an L.L. Bean catalog knows that federal judges just made up this concept,” he added.
The dissenting justices included Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, all of whom argued that nationwide injunctions serve as a critical check on executive overreach.
With the decision now in place, courts may no longer halt government actions for the entire country based on the outcome of a single lawsuit — unless the case directly involves those affected.
