Supreme Court Curbs Nationwide Injunctions, Partially Allows Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
SCOTUS Weakens Nationwide Legal Shields, Paves Partial Path for Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Crackdown
In a landmark 6–3 decision issued Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the scope of nationwide injunctions — a powerful legal tool historically used to block executive actions — in a case surrounding President Donald Trump’s controversial restriction on birthright citizenship.
The ruling, delivered along ideological lines, marks a significant shift in the judicial landscape. Writing for the Court’s conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that federal district judges had overreached by issuing broad, nationwide injunctions against Trump’s order. The Court stopped short of ruling on the order’s constitutionality but narrowed the injunctions to apply only to the 22 Democratic-led states, immigration groups, and pregnant individuals currently suing the administration.
“These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions’ — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Barrett wrote, signaling a recalibration of judicial power in the face of executive authority.
What This Means for Birthright Citizenship
Trump’s executive order — signed on his first day back in office in January — seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil if neither parent holds permanent legal status. This directive challenges the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has historically guaranteed citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions.
Legal experts and civil rights organizations have warned that this reinterpretation is constitutionally dubious. Indeed, every lower court that has reviewed the policy thus far has found it likely unconstitutional. But in granting partial enforcement, the Supreme Court allows the administration to move forward with preparing enforcement mechanisms — though it cannot begin denying citizenship for another 30 days.
Justices Push Back
The Court’s three liberal justices issued a fiery dissent, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor reading her objections aloud from the bench — a rare move meant to underscore the severity of her concern.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor warned, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
The dissent accused the conservative majority of facilitating executive “gamesmanship” and diminishing judicial checks on presidential power.
Nationwide Injunctions Under Fire
The decision comes amid a growing conservative legal backlash against nationwide injunctions, which have increasingly been used by federal judges to freeze policies across the entire country — from immigration bans to environmental rollbacks to public health mandates.
The Trump administration, supported by the Justice Department, argued that such sweeping injunctions allow individual judges to wield disproportionate power, stalling federal governance through isolated lawsuits. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that sentiment — at least for now.
However, the Court left a door open: plaintiffs may still pursue broader relief through class action lawsuits, potentially allowing courts to reimpose wide-ranging protections if granted class status.
What Comes Next
For now, Trump’s order will be blocked only within jurisdictions tied to the current lawsuits. But elsewhere, the administration may begin shaping policy guidance for partial implementation — a development that has immigration advocates and legal scholars sounding alarms.
The cases now return to the lower courts, and it’s likely the Supreme Court will be asked to revisit the constitutional question more directly once appeals are resolved.
In a break from tradition, the justices had agreed to hear oral arguments on this emergency issue during a special May session — a sign of the case’s legal and political gravity.
Bigger Picture: A Judiciary in Flux
This decision underscores a broader, quiet revolution in the federal judiciary. The Roberts Court continues to redefine the balance between local and national legal authority, executive power, and the reach of civil protections — all while critical constitutional questions remain unresolved.
As the Trump administration accelerates its second-term agenda, today's ruling hands the executive branch a procedural win — and leaves birthright citizenship hanging in legal limbo.