Louisiana Senator John Kennedy strongly endorsed a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited the use of nationwide injunctions, a decision that has stirred sharp debate across the political spectrum. Speaking on Fox News’ Faulkner Focus, Kennedy argued the ruling was not only a victory for the Constitution but also a sign of judicial restraint long overdue.
The Court’s 6–3 decision came in a case tied to challenges over birthright citizenship, but the ruling reached beyond that specific policy dispute. By striking down broad injunctions issued by lower courts against executive actions, the justices set a precedent likely to affect future administrations, regardless of party.
“Good Riddance” to Universal Injunctions
Kennedy applauded the ruling, saying that nationwide injunctions—court orders that block federal policies across the entire country—have no foundation in U.S. law.
“The Supreme Court has turned the universal injunctions into fish food, as well it should have,” Kennedy said. “There’s no basis in statute. There’s no basis in Supreme Court precedent. There is no basis in English common law for universal injunctions.”
He argued that such sweeping judicial actions allow individual judges to wield disproportionate power. “Judges who just dislike what Congress and a president—any president—has done just made them up,” he said. “And good riddance. I’m proud of the Supreme Court.”
A Clash with Justice Jackson
Kennedy’s comments also zeroed in on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, which criticized the majority’s reasoning and warned of long-term consequences for executive authority and constitutional protections.
“It’s a very extensive ruling. You can tell it from Justice Jackson’s dissent,” Kennedy said. “She’s mad as a bag of cats, and that’s probably a good thing for the American people.”
Kennedy framed Jackson’s dissent as evidence of the Court’s willingness to rein in what he views as judicial overreach. “If they disagree, I’m sorry,” he added. “Fill out a hurt feelings report. Buy a comfort rock. But they can’t invent powers courts never had.”
Broader Implications Beyond Birthright Citizenship
While the case originated from executive orders issued during Donald Trump’s presidency—particularly his attempt to narrow birthright citizenship—the ruling did not directly resolve that issue. Instead, the Court addressed the question of whether lower courts can impose universal injunctions that block policies nationwide, rather than limiting relief to the parties involved.
Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner pressed Kennedy on whether the decision would have wider implications beyond immigration. He agreed, noting that the Court’s rejection of universal injunctions will influence future disputes on health care, environmental regulations, and other executive actions.
“This isn’t just about one policy,” Kennedy said. “It’s about restoring balance between the courts and the elected branches of government.”
A Divided Court, an Ongoing Debate
The ruling underscores the ongoing ideological divide within the Court. While the conservative majority emphasized limits on judicial authority, the liberal justices warned the decision could reduce accountability and weaken checks on executive power.
For Kennedy and other Republicans, however, the decision represents a victory for separation of powers. “The people elect presidents and members of Congress to make decisions,” Kennedy said. “Not individual judges acting like they run the country.”
With the Court’s ruling, future administrations may find it easier to implement contested policies without being blocked nationwide by a single federal judge. Still, legal experts predict the debate over the reach of judicial power is far from over.
