The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to restrict the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges, delivering a procedural victory to President Donald Trump while sidestepping the core constitutional question over birthright citizenship. The decision, split along ideological lines, directs lower courts to reconsider sweeping injunctions that have blocked Trump's executive order aimed at denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary visa-holding parents.
The ruling stems from Trump v. CASA, a case triggered by the executive order Trump signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The order claims that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas are not entitled to automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated, "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts." The Court granted the government's application to stay the injunctions "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
The decision leaves unresolved whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act, but it blocks enforcement of the policy for at least 30 days to allow for further legal challenges. Three federal judges had previously declared the order unconstitutional and issued universal injunctions barring enforcement nationwide.
Trump celebrated the decision as a triumph for executive authority. Speaking from the White House briefing room, he called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law." He later posted on Truth Social, describing the outcome as a "GIANT WIN."
Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing beside Trump, said, "Americans are finally getting what they voted for." She declined to provide details on how the administration will implement the order or handle enforcement mechanisms going forward.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented on behalf of the Court's three liberal justices, writing that the majority "disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties." She criticized the Court for weakening a critical tool used to block executive overreach.
The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1866 after the Civil War, states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." That language has long been interpreted to grant automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status. The Court's decision did not overturn that precedent, which is rooted in an 1898 ruling that has never been reversed.
The Trump administration argues that judges have abused the power to issue nationwide injunctions, turning them into political tools that obstruct executive action. "Such orders have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, who predicted before the ruling that the Court was likely to limit the scope of such relief.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law expert at Cornell University, said the case presented a narrow procedural issue. "Although the case started as a direct challenge to President Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship, the issue before the Court is narrower: whether lower federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions to stop a president."
CASA, the immigrant rights organization named in the case, condemned the ruling. Legal Director Ama Frimpong said in a statement, "This is not a law or policy that needs to be changed. Let's be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at white supremacy. This is an assault on Black and brown families. On our very existence."
