Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump
birthright citizenship order unclear
[June 28, 2025]
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court
ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide
injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald
Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in
parts of the country.
The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about
judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal,
injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican
president’s efforts to expand executive power and remake the government
and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies.
But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship
changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny
citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country
illegally or temporarily.
The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide
how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which
was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy
can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.
Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a
confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that
sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country.
The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President
Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are
overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just
the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such
orders since Trump took office for a second term in January.
The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many
of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court
rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or
shadow, docket, but it did so in this case.
Federal courts, Barrett wrote, “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.”
The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the
decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,”
the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the
decision is “an unprecedented and terrifying step toward
authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable
move from this extremist MAGA court.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal
justices, called the decision "nothing less than an open invitation for
the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said,
because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it
has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.
The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the
lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. “To get
such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely
constitutional, an impossible task,” she wrote.
But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before
the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court
cases continue.
[to top of second column]
|
A U.S. Supreme Court police officer stands watch outside of the
Supreme Court, June 26, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)
Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents
following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice
Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone
potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by
declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was
part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring
opinion.
States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try
to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was
through a nationwide hold.
"We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in
keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course
birthright citizenship as well,” said Attorney General Andrea
Campbell of Massachusetts.
Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United
States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in
the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil
War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong
Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not
automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil
were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another
government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation;
those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign
Native American tribes.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship —
the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most
are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher
standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a
priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his
first day in office.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens
are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase
used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to
citizenship.
But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the
executive order have accused the administration of trying to
unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that
has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.
Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.
The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the
power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.
The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow
Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of
people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued
that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that
sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at
issue in this case.
The justices also agreed that the administration may make public
announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it
eventually is allowed to take effect.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
