Supreme Court Limits Use of Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Citizenship Case

The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on June 27 that partially halted nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the justices determined that federal district judges can no longer issue sweeping injunctions that shield everyone in the country from an administration policy.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that “universal injunctions” issued by district judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” While the Court did not address the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order itself, the decision substantially limits how lower courts can respond to federal policies they deem unlawful.

The ruling stems from three separate cases where district courts had issued injunctions after siding with plaintiffs who argued that Trump’s January 20 executive order violated the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Originally intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves, it has long formed the basis for America’s birthright citizenship policy.

Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the amendment’s scope, claiming the citizenship clause does not apply to individuals born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The order would take effect for children born on or after February 19, 2025.

At a White House press conference following the ruling, Trump called the decision “a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.” He characterized the previous injunctions as the work of “radical left judges” who had been “overruling the rightful powers of the president.”

Legal experts note that nationwide injunctions have historically been used to block policies from presidents of both parties, serving as a check on executive power.

According to Barrett’s opinion, Trump’s order could take effect 30 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, while “lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate.” This creates significant uncertainty about implementation, as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to provide specifics when questioned at the press conference, referring to it as “pending litigation” that would be addressed in the Supreme Court’s next term beginning in October.

The constitutional question at the heart of the dispute remains unresolved. Many legal scholars point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for a man born in San Francisco to Chinese citizen parents who were legally residing in the U.S. While this precedent established citizenship rights for children of legal non-citizen residents, some argue it doesn’t necessarily address children born to parents in the country illegally.

The Supreme Court’s decision may have created a path toward differential citizenship status across states. Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, told PBS NewsHour the ruling “creates a potential for patchwork citizenship,” noting that Americans freely move between states without borders or passports, but now citizenship could potentially vary depending on birthplace.

In response to the ruling, plaintiffs are already pursuing alternative legal strategies. The Court explicitly left open the possibility for class-action lawsuits to more broadly challenge federal policies. Shortly after the decision, immigrant rights groups refiled their lawsuit as a class-action case in Maryland, and the American Civil Liberties Union led another class-action filing in New Hampshire.

Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, expressed skepticism that the ruling would ultimately change birthright citizenship practices. “I expect the courts to continue to reject in case after case the government’s arguments for the birthright citizenship order,” he wrote in a New York Times opinion piece, predicting the executive order would “never go into effect.”

However, if class-action attempts fail, some children born in the U.S. could temporarily be denied automatic citizenship at birth, creating unprecedented legal complications for families and immigration authorities alike.