On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a pivotal ruling supporting President Donald Trump’s request to reduce the scope of lower-court orders that have for months obstructed the administration's ban on automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. The Court's 6-3 decision, with the liberal justices dissenting, significantly curtails the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a powerful tool previously used to halt many of Trump's policies across the nation.
The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of the president’s ban on birthright citizenship, which remains a central element of his immigration policies. Traditionally, the United States has conferred automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Opponents of Trump's ban argue that it contradicts the 14th Amendment, established court precedents, and the historical practices of the nation.
Despite the ruling, which keeps Trump’s ban on hold for at least 30 days, it directs several cases back to lower courts to assess the practical implications of this decision. The Court has opened a pathway for challengers to continue contesting the policy through class-action lawsuits, while also suggesting that birthright citizenship could potentially be eliminated in the 28 states that have not joined lawsuits against it.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, asserted that nationwide injunctions likely exceed the authority granted to federal courts by Congress. She emphasized that judges must restrict their rulings to the individuals and organizations that initiate lawsuits, which, in this case, includes states and pregnant noncitizens challenging the policy. “Some argue that the universal injunction gives the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch,” Barrett noted. “However, federal courts do not have the authority to oversee the Executive Branch broadly; their role is to resolve specific cases and controversies.”
In a robust dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her strong disagreement with the majority opinion, dubbing it a “travesty of law.” She warned that this ruling would lead to chaos for families of affected children, arguing that the conservative majority had overlooked the unlawfulness of Trump’s citizenship ban. Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who asserted that the case warranted a universal injunction.
Following the decision, President Trump celebrated the ruling, stating, “We can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.” He indicated that the administration would also seek to revisit cases related to funding for sanctuary cities, refugee resettlement, and other immigration-related policies.
However, Skye Perryman, president of the advocacy group Democracy Forward, described the ruling as disappointing but noted that its impact might not be as extensive as Trump claimed. She highlighted the nuanced scope of the ruling that the White House overlooked, while conservative commentator Ed Whelan suggested the ruling's immediate effects might be less significant than celebrated.
The Court’s ruling follows a series of legal challenges from 22 Democratic-led states, immigrant advocacy organizations, and pregnant women who have contested Trump’s ban in federal courts across Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State. These cases will return to the judges who initially issued the injunctions, which must now reassess whether the states meet the newly established standard for obtaining broad relief.
The Supreme Court acknowledged arguments from states challenging the ban, which claimed that the harms caused by the policy necessitate a nationwide order due to the fluidity of children’s movements across state lines. The justices instructed lower courts to evaluate these assertions and determine if narrower injunctions would be appropriate.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown remarked that the ruling leaves families uncertain about their children’s citizenship status, asserting that the fight against what he described as an un-American executive order is far from over. Legal experts anticipate a surge in new class-action lawsuits challenging the enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, potentially leading to further Supreme Court involvement.
In the hours following the ruling, advocacy groups such as CASA de Maryland swiftly filed amended lawsuits in federal courts, seeking class-action status for every pregnant individual or child born to families lacking permanent legal status. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations initiated a nationwide class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire on behalf of infants who would be denied citizenship under Trump’s directive.
The Supreme Court's decision not only reshapes the judicial landscape for executive actions but also poses significant implications for the future of immigration policy in the United States. As the lower courts reassess the challenges posed against Trump’s birthright citizenship ban, the ongoing legal battles will continue to draw national attention, with the potential for further Supreme Court scrutiny in the future.
