In a new Instagram video that’s drawing attention across legal and political circles, Yale Law School graduate and corporate attorney Daria Rose has unpacked the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision that significantly limits the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions.
She believes this move could change the future of presidential authority and civil rights enforcement in America.
“This is basically the ballgame,” said Rose, a Harvard alumna and associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who focused on constitutional law during her time at Yale.
Speaking directly to her Instagram followers, Rose explained how the 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emerged from a case centered on birthright citizenship but has broader implications.
The Court’s Ruling: No More Nationwide Injunctions
At the heart of the controversy is the court’s restriction on nationwide injunctions—a potent legal tool previously used by lower courts to halt executive orders across the entire country. As Rose explains:
“It’s basically an order from a federal judge stopping an action for the whole country, not just their district. And the court today said, ‘Hey, actually, you can’t do that anymore.’”
This ruling, Rose warns, significantly curtails a crucial legal barrier that had been used to block executive actions, including those associated with President Donald Trump’s Project 2025 agenda.
“This is a huge win for the president,” she said. “No matter how wrong or unconstitutional the executive’s policy is, federal district judges cannot stop him, at least not on behalf of the entire country.”
Now, Rose notes, affected individuals will have to either file their own lawsuits, join a class action, or hope a state takes up their cause.
A Legal Patchwork?

This decision could lead to wildly inconsistent legal protections across state lines.
“You could have a situation,” Rose explained, “where a child born in New Jersey is a U.S. citizen, but just across the river in Pennsylvania, they’re not.”
Although the court did not make a final ruling on the substantive question of birthright citizenship, Rose explained that this decision sets the procedural groundwork for future constitutional battles.
Sotomayor’s Dissent: “No Right is Safe”

Rose also highlighted what she called one of the “most powerful dissents” she’s ever read—written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The dissent warns of the sweeping consequences of the majority’s decision, comparing it to the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling, which denied citizenship to children of enslaved Black Americans.
Sotomayor wrote:
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates… Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law. I dissent.”
Rose praised the dissent’s historical grounding and its chilling foresight, noting it would likely be studied “for decades to come.”
Who Is Daria Rose?
Beyond social media, Daria Rose is a rising star in legal circles. At Yale, she served as an editor for the Yale Law Journal and helped establish the school’s Access to Law School pipeline program. She graduated cum laude from Harvard with a degree in Government and is now practicing corporate law at Wachtell Lipton, one of the most prestigious firms in the country.
In her video, Rose stressed that this ruling could impact not only conservative executive orders but progressive ones as well—including student loan relief and gun control policies—depending on who occupies the White House.
“This is about much more than birthright citizenship,” Rose concluded. “It’s about how we check power—and who gets to do it.”
Daria Rose’s legal breakdown is a clear, accessible wake-up call: the structure of American judicial power has just shifted—perhaps permanently.