Trump foes will find 'hope buried in fine print' of Supreme Court ruling: report

The Supreme Court may have handed President Donald Trump a significant win on Friday, but a new Politico report revealed "signs of hope buried in the fine print."

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential policies. Specifically, the ruling targeted those related to Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens or lawful permanent residents. While the ruling didn't weigh in on whether Trump's order was constitutional, the ruling sharply curtailed the power of district court judges to block nationwide federal policies. In general, injunctions can now only protect specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit rather than the entire country.

But Politico noted Friday that for the "Trump resistance, there are signs of hope buried in the fine print."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 26-page opinion, the report said, left a "surprising degree of wiggle room."

"Yes, conventional nationwide injunctions are off the table, but Trump’s opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution," the report said.

Politico flagged three specific alternatives. Critics could format their legal challenges as class-action lawsuits, lean on state-led lawsuits to achieve broad rulings, or challenge certain policies under a federal administrative law that allows courts to strike down executive branch actions.

While the effectiveness of these potential loopholes remains untested, Politico noted the court explicitly refused to block them, opening loopholes that Justice Samuel Alito flagged in his concurrence. Should lower courts allow the workarounds, Alito wrote, “today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.”