WASHINGTON, June 27 – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 6-3 ruling on Friday that limits the ability of lower federal judges to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions against presidential directives. The case, centered on a controversial order related to birthright citizenship, marks a win for President Donald Trump and his allies advocating for stronger executive authority.
While the ruling did not immediately greenlight Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, it instructed lower courts that had previously blocked the directive to reconsider the extent of their nationwide bans. Importantly, the Court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the policy itself, focusing instead on judicial authority in the broader context of presidential actions.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that the judiciary must exercise restraint when it comes to overriding executive authority. “While it’s clear the Executive Branch must obey the law, the courts aren’t granted unlimited power to impose that duty,” she cautioned, adding a warning about the risks posed by what she called an “overreaching judiciary.”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a passionate dissent, both from the bench and in writing, criticizing the majority for sidestepping the constitutional issues raised by the executive order. Joined by two other liberal justices, she argued that the directive was plainly unconstitutional and that universal injunctions were necessary to prevent widespread harm.
Impact on Immigration and Beyond
The executive order in question, signed by Trump upon his first day back in office, sought to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Immigration advocates, civil rights groups, and Democratic-led states had challenged the order, arguing it defies the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which grants citizenship to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States.
Supporters of the order claim that the 14th Amendment does not apply to children born to undocumented immigrants or to those in the country on temporary visas. Opponents argue that the policy would impact over 150,000 children annually, creating legal limbo for infants born within U.S. borders.
President Trump welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the proper separation of powers.” He noted that his administration could now revisit several policies previously halted by nationwide injunctions, including efforts to restrict funding to sanctuary cities, halt refugee resettlement programs, and impose limits on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care.
The justices clarified that while the executive order cannot take effect immediately, the restriction could eventually apply in regions where no court has issued an injunction. The directive is paused for at least 30 days, pending further legal review. Meanwhile, lower courts must reassess the scope of relief granted to plaintiffs, restricting remedies to those directly involved in litigation unless broader action is necessary to ensure justice.
Maryland-based District Judge Deborah Boardman, who initially blocked the order nationwide, has scheduled a new hearing following requests from immigrant rights groups to reframe the case as a class action. Attorneys argue that the Supreme Court’s guidance now permits broader class-wide relief when appropriate.
Washington state’s Attorney General, one of the officials who secured the initial nationwide injunction, acknowledged the disappointment in the Court’s limitation of judicial reach but pointed out that courts may still offer broad relief under specific circumstances. “The justices have affirmed that complete relief remains a possibility when the need arises,” he stated.
A Precedent with Wider Implications
Legal experts note that while the Court did not ban nationwide injunctions outright, it set a precedent limiting their routine use. The ruling permits judges to issue comprehensive relief for plaintiffs but discourages the practice of halting policies across the country for individuals not party to the case.
This decision may have lasting effects beyond the birthright citizenship policy. This decision may redefine the way federal judges handle broad presidential directives going forward. Historically, such injunctions have played a critical role in checking executive overreach, particularly in areas involving immigration, civil rights, and public health.
Opponents of Trump’s executive order insist that the policy remains unlawful. An attorney from a leading civil rights organization described the directive as “blatantly unconstitutional and deeply harmful,” pledging continued legal action to prevent its implementation. “We will take every possible step to ensure that no child is denied citizenship simply because of their parent’s immigration status,” he said.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor encouraged impacted families to pursue class action lawsuits and request swift legal protection, cautioning that allowing the order to proceed could lead to serious and widespread implications. “If courts cannot stop a plainly illegal policy from harming thousands, then the rule of law suffers a profound blow,” she wrote.
Public opinion on the matter remains divided. A recent national poll found that just under a quarter of respondents supported ending birthright citizenship, while over half opposed such a move. The rest were either undecided or chose not to respond.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling adds to a series of decisions that have expanded Trump’s leeway on immigration. Earlier this week, the justices allowed the administration to resume a program permitting the deportation of migrants to third countries without giving them the opportunity to demonstrate potential dangers. Other rulings in recent months have backed Trump’s efforts to withdraw humanitarian protections from hundreds of thousands of migrants.
However, the Court has not universally sided with the administration. A recent decision blocked the use of a centuries-old law to deport Venezuelan nationals without proper legal procedures, showing that judicial scrutiny remains alive even as its tools are recalibrated.