Washington, DC: In a powerful double verdict on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two highly consequential rulings that are expected to reshape both presidential authority and religious rights in public education. One case marked a major victory for President Donald Trump, restricting federal judges’ power to block executive orders nationwide, while the other handed a win to religious parents seeking to exempt their children from LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum in Maryland schools.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with President Trump, sharply curtailing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions against presidential directives. The ruling addressed ongoing litigation over Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at denying U.S. citizenship to children born to non-citizen parents a move critics argue violates the 14th Amendment.

While the Court did not affirm the legality of Trump’s order, it ordered lower courts to reevaluate the nationwide scope of their injunctions. This means that while the policy remains on hold for now, its eventual enforcement could be geographically limited rather than universally blocked.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned against what she called an “imperial judiciary,” emphasizing that while the courts have authority, that power must be restrained to prevent interference with the Executive Branch. The Court directed that Trump’s order cannot take effect for at least 30 days and left open the possibility of class action lawsuits to challenge the policy more broadly.

President Trump hailed the ruling as a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law," and indicated that his administration would now push forward with several stalled initiatives, including cuts to sanctuary city funding, refugee intake suspensions, and limitations on federal spending for gender-affirming procedures.

Opposition voices, however, were fierce. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, called the ruling a “travesty,” arguing that it disregards the obvious unconstitutionality of Trump’s order and undermines equitable judicial remedies.

Immigration advocates fear the policy, if implemented, could strip citizenship rights from over 150,000 newborns annually. Legal groups like the ACLU vowed to continue their fight, calling the order “blatantly illegal and cruel.”

In a separate 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court also backed a group of religious parents in Maryland who objected to their children being required to read books with LGBTQ themes as part of a public school curriculum. The justices granted a preliminary injunction, allowing the parents to opt their children out of the reading assignments while the case proceeds in lower courts.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that the school district’s refusal to grant opt-outs placed an “unconstitutional burden” on the free exercise of religion protected under the First Amendment. He stressed that the parents had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their case and that denying relief would cause irreparable harm.

The curriculum in question includes books like Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about a same-sex marriage, and Born Ready, a story about a transgender child. While the parents didn’t object to the books being available in libraries, they argued that mandatory reading violated their religious beliefs.

The Montgomery County Public Schools system, which introduced the books in 2022 to foster inclusivity and diversity, had removed the opt-out option in 2023, citing classroom disruption and concerns over stigmatization of LGBTQ students.

Justice Sotomayor again dissented, warning that the decision could create “chaos” in public schools, where varied religious beliefs might increasingly be used to opt out of standard educational content.

LGBTQ advocacy groups condemned the ruling. Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the decision sends a damaging message to LGBTQ students, implying that their existence is not worthy of inclusion in school narratives.

On the other side, religious liberty organizations and the parents involved called the decision a “win for families everywhere,” celebrating it as an affirmation of parental rights in public education.

These rulings, delivered on the final day of the Supreme Court’s current term, underscore the Court’s conservative tilt and its willingness to revisit long-standing interpretations of executive power and religious freedoms. They also provide a significant boost to Trump’s policy agenda, with immigration, education, and social values once again at the center of a polarized national debate.

As lower courts prepare to respond to the Supreme Court’s directives, the decisions are likely to have a ripple effect on future litigation involving presidential powers and educational rights setting legal benchmarks for years to come.