Friday’s Supreme Court 6-3 decision limiting the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions is being celebrated by Wyoming’s congressional delegation and a former Wyoming chief justice as a victory against government overreach.
Wyoming Republicans U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman and Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis call the ruling a “major victory” to limit the reach of activist judges who make rulings on issues outside their jurisdictions.
Former Wyoming Attorney General and Supreme Court Chief Justice Bill Hill also praised the Justice Amy Coney Barrett-authored opinion that was issued in response to three nationwide injunctions issued to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship.
In her majority opinion, Barrett wrote that that the same argument used to justify the injunctions goes both ways while taking a shot at the dissenting opinion.
Dissenting Justice Kentaji Brown-Jackson “would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law,’” Barrett wrote. That goes for judges too.”
District court judges have issued 25 nationwide injunctions since President Donald Trump took office Jan. 20.
The injunctions have stopped Trump’s executive orders ending birthright citizenship, defunding diversity, equity and inclusion programs, changing U.S. foreign aid programs, working to remove transgender women from women’s sports and terminating funding to some refugee resettlement programs.
Hageman told Cowboy State Daily the opinion is a “major victory for the rule of law and voice of everyday Americans.”
“This finally reins in the dangerous practice of one rogue and activist district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction and assuming unilateral power that even the members of the Supreme Court do not have,” Hageman said.
They’re Judges, Not Rulers
Allowing district judges to issue nationwide injunctions undermines the legal system because it gives one judge jurisdiction over the whole country, said Hageman, who’s also an attorney. The court’s ruling restores what constitutional framers intended by creating federal districts in the first place.
The ruling ensures “executive actions face real, concrete opposition rather than premature, nationwide paralysis, Hageman said.
Hill called the court’s ruling “brilliant.”
“It’s overdue,” Hill told Cowboy State Daily. “The Trump administration and the Department of Justice are correct in their interpretation of the law.”
Barrasso said unelected judges — judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate — have no right to rule the country.
“It isn’t checks and balances,” Barrasso posted to X. “It is purely partisan politics — and it is wrong.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling reins in Democrat-appointed judges looking to stop President Donald Trump’s administration, Barrasso continued, adding that it’s a win for the rule of law and common sense.
“Nationwide injunctions issued by partisan, unelected district court judges is a new phenomenon,” Barrasso said. “It has been abused by elitist extremists wanting to overrule the will of the American people. The Supreme Court got it right by putting an end to this abuse.”
Restores ‘Constitutional Order’
Lummis also said the court’s decision was correct.
“SCOTUS is right to rein in activist judges using nationwide injunctions to block federal policies,” she posted to X. “For too long, single district court judges have wrongly imposed their will on the entire nation from their benches. It's time to restore constitutional order.”
Trump, who received more than 71% of the vote in Wyoming in 2024, also celebrated.
He called the ruling a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law” in a news conference held after the order was released.
“I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we’ve seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers,” Trump said. “It was a grave threat to democracy.”
Barrett wrote that nationwide injunctions lack historical pedigree and “fall outside the bounds” of a district court’s authority under the 1789 Judiciary Act.
“Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” Barrett wrote. “In fact, universal injunctions were not a feature of federal court litigation until sometime in the 20th century. Yet such injunctions remained rare until the turn of the 21st century, when their use gradually accelerated.”
Matthew Christian can be reached at matthew@cowboystatedaily.com.
