President Donald Trump hailed the ruling as a “monumental decision” in remarks following the Supreme Court’s decision, which largely split along ideological lines, concerning his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, on Friday, handed a significant victory to the Trump administration by allowing it, for now, to proceed with steps toward implementing its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship.
In a 6-3 vote, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges, limiting their application to only the states, groups, and individuals who were parties to the lawsuits.
This decision implies that the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward, at least partially. However, the specifics remain unclear and further court challenges are still possible on other legal grounds.
The ruling immediately triggered responses from plaintiffs who originally sued to block the executive order. Their lawyers vowed to continue the legal battle. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a new class-action lawsuit.
It has been a long-held and widely accepted understanding, even among legal scholars across the political spectrum, that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment generally grants automatic citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States.
Crucially, this decision did not address the underlying legal merits of Trump’s plan. However, the administration is likely to benefit in several ways, as it can now seek to limit other nationwide injunctions that lower courts have imposed on a variety of executive branch actions, including efforts to downsize the federal government.
In remarks at the White House, Trump called the ruling “an amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about,” adding that the court “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.”
When asked about concerns that the decision could concentrate power in the presidency, Trump responded, “This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it’s all about, and this is really the opposite of that.”
The Court’s division on the nationwide injunction question was along ideological lines, with conservatives forming the majority and liberals dissenting.
“When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
However, she clarified that the nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases are specifically limited “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary.”
Lower courts, she added, “shall move expeditiously” to determine the appropriate breadth of the injunctions. Barrett noted that states involved in the litigation could potentially still obtain broad injunctions.
The Court also stated that the administration can continue its administrative work on how the policy would be implemented.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading a summary of her dissent from the bench, described the ruling as a “travesty for the rule of the law” and an “open invitation to bypass the constitution.”
She warned that federal courts “will be hamstrung” when it comes to nationwide injunctions but urged potential plaintiffs to immediately file class-action lawsuits, a legal avenue the court left open.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
The policy remains blocked for now in New Hampshire due to a separate lawsuit not currently before the Supreme Court.
The Court indicated that the executive order would technically take effect in 30 days.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, whose state challenged the plan, expressed confidence that the executive order would never go into effect.
“And in the meantime, our fight continues,” he added.
William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, announced at a news conference that his group and other plaintiffs, including CASA Inc., had immediately filed for class certification in district court, seeking relief for children and their parents nationwide from Trump’s executive order.
Powell stated that, given the Supreme Court’s decision, “the best and most effective way for us to get relief for everyone is going to be the class action,” adding that he believed that relief “will be just as effective, just as broad as the nationwide injunction that was previously in place.”
Trump and his MAGA allies have been critical of judges who have blocked aspects of his agenda, although the use of nationwide injunctions by courts is not a new phenomenon.
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historically, the only exception has been children of diplomats.
Trump aims to adopt a new interpretation of this language, conferring citizenship only on those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day in office in January, was promptly challenged, and every court that has ruled on the proposal thus far has blocked it. The cases before the Supreme Court originated in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state.
The Trump plan has the backing of 21 other states.
The administration has voiced strong criticism against judges for issuing nationwide injunctions in response to Trump’s use of executive power to implement his agenda. This agenda includes increased deportations, downsizing federal agencies, targeting law firms and universities, and terminating thousands of federal employees.
Justice Department officials claim there have been dozens of such rulings and have characterized them as an unconstitutional attack on the president’s authority. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have also faced challenges to their agendas due to nationwide injunctions, although they have become more common in recent years.
