Supreme Court limits judges' powers over nationwide injunctions on birthright citizenship
- The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions, impacting how legal challenges are handled.
- The ruling returns cases regarding Trump's birthright citizenship executive order to lower courts for further consideration.
- This decision may lead to inconsistent policies across states and embolden the executive branch to enact controversial measures.
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a significant ruling regarding President Donald Trump's administration's attempts to terminate birthright citizenship. This ruling came amid ongoing legal battles over Trump's executive order, which proposed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to individuals living in the country illegally. The Court's conservative majority determined that federal district courts do not possess the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for executive power and judicial checks on that power. Trump's order, signed on his first day in office, is seen as part of his broader hardline immigration agenda. Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding legal principle in the United States established under the 14th Amendment, which has been upheld by precedents set by past Supreme Court rulings. However, Trump's administration has argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment allows for the denial of citizenship to children of noncitizen parents, a position that lower courts have consistently rejected. The Supreme Court’s decision did not directly tackle the constitutionality of Trump's executive order, instead focusing on procedural issues of how lower courts can issue rulings going forward. As a result of the ruling, pending cases related to the Trump administration's order now return to lower courts, where judges will have to adjust their decisions to comply with the Supreme Court's constraints on nationwide relief. This situation could create a confusing patchwork of laws regarding birthright citizenship across different states, especially since 22 states had previously challenged the order in court. Dissenting justices expressed concern that without nationwide injunctions, the government could enforce potentially unconstitutional policies, leaving many vulnerable individuals without protection. The dissent warned of a looming