A 6–3 Supreme Court ruling has sharply limited the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, delivering a procedural victory for President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship—but leaving the policy’s constitutionality unresolved.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges may no longer block policies nationwide—only for plaintiffs involved
- Trump’s January 20 Executive Order ending birthright citizenship remains partially blocked in states with active suits
- The policy could take effect in parts of the country without court injunctions
- The ruling may lead to a fragmented legal environment for citizenship rights
- Critics warn this undermines judicial oversight of executive power
Ruling Redefines Judicial Restraint
In Trump v. CASA, the Court determined that nationwide injunctions overstep lower courts’ authority. Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, argued that equitable relief must be tailored to the litigants, not applied broadly to non-parties. The case stemmed from challenges to Executive Order 14160, which seeks to revoke automatic citizenship for children born to non-citizens.
As AP News reports, the decision does not address whether the order is constitutional—it only curtails how courts can freeze it during litigation. Lower courts will now need to rule individually in each jurisdiction.
Birthright Protections Now Uneven
Trump’s executive order was previously blocked nationwide by multiple district courts. Now, only states with active suits retain those blocks. According to TIME, the order could become enforceable in as many as 30 states unless new legal actions are filed.
Critics say the ruling fragments the application of constitutional rights. Justice Sotomayor, writing in dissent, called it “a dangerous weakening of judicial oversight,” while immigrant rights advocates warn the policy could cause “statelessness for children” in some regions.
Political and Legal Fallout
The ruling marks a significant procedural win for the Trump administration, granting it more freedom to implement controversial executive actions without immediate national restraint. As The San Francisco Chronicle notes, the decision sets the stage for a wave of localized legal battles.
The Guardian reports that President Trump celebrated the decision as a victory for “federal strength,” while liberal justices denounced it as a “travesty for the rule of law.”
Legal scholars expect challenges to continue in lower courts, with each state now becoming a potential battleground over who qualifies for U.S. citizenship. The Supreme Court has signaled it will not weigh in again—unless lower courts rule on the constitutional merits of Trump’s order directly.
