SCOTUS hands Trump major win on birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to curtail federal judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship, though the policy’s future remains unclear as litigation continues in lower courts.

Trump’s executive order, which was signed on his first day back at the White House, would eliminate citizenship for U.S.-born children whose parents lack citizenship or permanent legal status. Courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state blocked the directive with nationwide injunctions. The controversy centers on the 14th Amendment, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens, with the traditional exception being children of foreign diplomats.

The 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that birthright citizenship covers nearly all children born on U.S. soil, except for children of diplomats, enemies during wartime occupation, those born on foreign ships and children of sovereign Native American tribes. The Trump administration contends that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore lack entitlement to citizenship, while critics argue this interpretation contradicts established precedent. Twenty-one states back the policy, while 22 Democratic-led states have filed legal challenges.

In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” Barrett noted that federal courts “do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” The court restricted the injunctions “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary” and directed lower courts to “move expeditiously” in determining appropriate scope.

During a 20-minute reading from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling “nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution” and labeled it a “travesty for the rule of law.” In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the decision as “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that judges could potentially provide broad relief through “putative nationwide class” actions.

The ruling represents a major change in how federal courts can constrain executive actions, with Trump calling it “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution.” The administration now plans to target other nationwide injunctions blocking policies on sanctuary city funding, refugee resettlement and federal funding for transgender surgeries.

Attorneys expect a wave of new class-action cases, with challengers already submitting revised lawsuits hours after the court’s decision. The court left open questions about whether states can obtain sweeping injunctions to safeguard their interests, while the policy stays blocked in New Hampshire under different litigation.