In a landmark 6–3 decision that redefines judicial boundaries and reignites debate over constitutional protections, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that federal district courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions—removing the primary legal barrier that had blocked Donald Trump’s controversial executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
The court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s order itself. Instead, it focused narrowly on limiting the scope of lower court rulings. The decision lifts national injunctions imposed by courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington state, permitting the executive order to take effect outside of the plaintiff groups involved in the lawsuits.
The decision grants the former president a partial legal victory, setting the stage for the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which aims to redefine the scope of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Trump signed the order on January 20, 2025, hours after his return to office.
According to a report by The Washington Post, the executive order seeks to deny automatic US citizenship to children born on American soil to non-citizen mothers—unless their fathers are either US citizens or lawful permanent residents. The administration claims the policy is intended to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment.
As noted by NBC News , the Supreme Court’s ruling applies only to the procedural issue of injunctions, not the constitutional merits of the order. Justice Barrett emphasized that district courts “must confine relief to parties before them,” rejecting what she described as an “unbounded judicial power.”
The ruling immediately lifts the nationwide scope of the injunctions but provides a 30-day window for lower courts to reconfigure their decisions. According to the official Supreme Court docket, the case—Trump v. CASA, Inc.—will now proceed with limited injunctive relief, applying only to specific plaintiffs.
The dissenting liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—warned that the decision would allow “unconstitutional executive actions” to take effect across vast portions of the country without adequate judicial recourse. However, these arguments did not sway the conservative majority, who characterized the move as necessary to restore “judicial restraint.”
According to the official White House order text, the administration argues that automatic birthright citizenship had become a “magnet for abuse” and seeks to apply a more restrictive, paternal-line test to qualify newborns for US citizenship. Critics have condemned this as an effort to undermine a constitutional right recognized for over a century.
Trump’s order is widely seen as a direct challenge to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court decision that affirmed the citizenship of a child born in the US to Chinese parents who were not US citizens. Immigration advocates warn that dismantling this precedent could result in widespread legal uncertainty and civil rights violations.
As reported by The New York Times, immigrant rights groups have already begun refiling challenges to the order in other federal jurisdictions, in an effort to reestablish legal precedent and potentially force a new constitutional ruling.
Political analysts note that the ruling plays directly into the Trump campaign’s 2025 strategy of linking immigration to national identity and security. While the ruling does not permit the policy to go into full effect, it provides momentum for Trump’s broader agenda of centralizing executive authority and curtailing liberal judicial activism.
As noted by The Tribune India, international human rights groups have condemned both the executive order and the ruling. They argue the policy disproportionately targets migrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East and represents a retreat from international norms protecting children’s rights.
As noted by Reuters, legal advocacy groups and constitutional scholars warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling could set a dangerous precedent by weakening judicial oversight of executive power. Critics argue that the decision undermines long-standing civil rights protections enshrined in the 14th Amendment and reflects a broader erosion of institutional checks within the US legal system. While the ruling avoids a direct challenge to Trump’s order, analysts say it opens the door for potentially discriminatory policies to take effect with limited judicial resistance.
The broader legal battle over birthright citizenship is far from over. While the current ruling addresses only injunction authority, future challenges could bring the constitutional question to the Supreme Court directly. Legal observers expect renewed litigation in the coming months to clarify whether the 14th Amendment still guarantees citizenship for all persons born on American soil—regardless of their parents’ status.
