A quiet but consequential battle over the power of our federal judiciary is being fought on two fronts. In the halls of Congress late Friday night, one assault on judicial authority was thwarted by arcane Senate procedure.

But at the same time, the Supreme Court itself handed the White House a significant victory in its long-running campaign to limit the power of federal judges.

This two-front war is not a procedural squabble; it is a fundamental struggle over the separation of powers. The effort to weaken the judiciary’s ability to check the executive branch is one of the most significant constitutional tests of our time.

While one legislative provision has been defeated for now, the broader campaign to reshape the balance of power in favor of the executive is very much alive.

How the Byrd Rule Protected the Judiciary

The first battle took place within the text of the Senate’s latest “megabill.” Buried within the legislation was a provision that would have radically curtailed the power of federal courts to issue injunctions against the U.S. government.

Republicans sought this change to stop what they see as activist judges who have repeatedly issued nationwide rulings creating “obstacles to the Trump administration’s agenda.”

This attempt to legislate away a core judicial power was not stopped by a floor debate or a presidential veto. It was stopped by the Senate Parliamentarian. In a crucial ruling, Elizabeth MacDonough determined that the provision violated the Byrd Rule, a Senate procedural guardrail that limits what can be passed via the budget reconciliation process with a simple majority.

This arcane rule, designed to protect the integrity of the budget process, had a profound constitutional effect. It prevented a narrow majority from enacting a sweeping change to the balance of powers, demonstrating how the intricate rules of our institutions can serve as a vital check on raw political ambition.

SCOTUS Weighs In

Even as Congress’s effort was being blocked by its own internal rules, the judiciary was moving to police itself. In a separate opinion issued on Friday related to a challenge to the President’s birthright citizenship order, the Supreme Court signaled its own desire to limit the power of individual district court judges to issue injunctions with national implications.

This creates a complex and ironic situation. While the legislative branch’s attack on judicial power was halted, the Supreme Court is now undertaking its own project of contracting the authority of lower courts. For an administration that has long chafed under nationwide injunctions, this decision from the highest court is a far more significant and lasting victory than any provision in a Senate bill could have been.

The Constitutional Stakes: An Independent Judiciary at Risk

This entire conflict revolves around a critical tool of American law: the injunction. The power of a court to issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is the primary mechanism for checking a potentially illegal or unconstitutional executive action before it can do irreparable harm to citizens or the states.

It is the judiciary’s emergency brake.

The campaign to limit this power—whether through legislation or court precedent—is a direct effort to weaken the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government. It seeks to create a system where a president’s orders are executed first and their legality is only debated later, after the damage has been done.

This fundamentally alters the balance of power, tipping the scales heavily in favor of the executive branch.

The legislative fight over this specific provision may be over, but the war continues. The Senate bill still includes funding for the federal government to study the costs of these injunctions, signaling a long-term commitment to this issue. The combination of sustained political pressure from Congress and a Supreme Court that is already moving to limit the practice suggests that the power of the federal judiciary will remain under siege.

A government where the executive cannot be effectively and immediately checked by the courts is a government on a dangerous path—one that the framers of the Constitution specifically designed our system of separated powers to avoid.