Supreme Court rules against nationwide blocks of Trump’s citizenship order
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against federal courts issuing universal injunctions.
- Majority found lower court blocks on Trump’s citizenship order exceeded authority.
- Ruling narrows judicial power, leaves birthright citizenship issue unresolved.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, ruled Friday that lower courts that imposed nationwide suspensions of President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship could not do so.
What that ultimately means for the Trump effort to eliminate the constitutional provision that those born in this country are U.S. citizens was unclear; the matter will likely be determined by further court rulings.
Trump called the ruling a “giant win” in a social media post.
“The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch,” he told reporters at a White House news conference.
Attorney General Pam Bondi declared, “Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation.”
On the day he took office this year, Trump signed an executive order stating that children of parents in the country illegally, or whose stay is “lawful but temporary,” were not entitled to U.S. citizenship.
The order faced multiple legal challenges, including from the California Attorney General’s Office, San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and attorneys general in several states.
‘Profoundly disturbing implications’
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said in a statement the Supreme Court’s ruling has “profoundly disturbing implications for our rule of law.”
Adding: “The Court’s decision limits the judiciary’s own authority and makes it more difficult for the people to protect themselves against executive overreach and authoritarianism.”
In Washington, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said the ruling “undermines equal justice under the law. The Court’s decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit.
“Today’s decision emboldens President Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute in immigrant communities.”
Three federal judges issued injunctions to block Trump’s order. These “universal injunctions” allowed courts to issue rulings that applied nationwide.
The administration challenged those decisions, and the Supreme Court majority agreed the lower courts overreached.
Majority opinion: Judges ‘likely exceeded’ authority
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, wrote that the universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”
Barrett noted that some view such injunctions as a “powerful tool to check the executive branch.”
But, she added, “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.
“When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Barrett wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, saying that birthright citizenship has long been an important part of the Constitution, and the Trump administration is trying to undermine it.
“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” she wrote.
Implications beyond birthright citizenship issue
The case — decided on the Supreme Court’s last day of the term — has potential implications besides the future of birthright citizenship. It raises the question of whether an individual judge can block a president’s executive order nationwide.
Birthright citizenship was established by the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868. It states that anyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that a Black person descended from enslaved individuals was not a citizen.
The Supreme Court upheld the principle in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen.
When the Supreme Court heard the case in May, the administration argued that universal injunctions were unconstitutional and sought guidance on how to implement the executive order.
Solicitor General Dean John Sauer argued that the order is in the spirit of the “original meaning of the 14th Amendment.” The Amendment, he said, was meant to deal with children of people who had been slaves.
The administration did not ask the court to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, focusing instead on the legality of nationwide injunctions.
Joining Barrett in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, all appointed by Republican presidents.
Sotomayor was joined in dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all appointed by Democratic presidents.
“We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The fight is far from over.”
This story was originally published June 27, 2025 at 7:40 AM with the headline "Supreme Court rules against nationwide blocks of Trump’s citizenship order."
.jpg)