Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions Blocking Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban

People demonstrate with CASA outside the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday May 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

HOME I I HI TECH NEWS I SPORTS I CONTACT



	Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's Birthright Citizenship ban Tanya Sommerfield - Immigration/Law Tell Us USA News Network WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to President Donald Trump on Friday, voting 6-3 to scale back sweeping court orders that had blocked his administration's controversial ban on automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. The decision, which split along ideological lines with liberal justices dissenting, represents a major development in Trump's broader immigration crackdown and marks the final ruling of the court's current term. Procedural Victory, Constitutional Questions Remain Importantly, the justices did not rule on the constitutional merits of Trump's birthright citizenship policy itself. Instead, they focused on a narrower procedural question about the scope of judicial power to issue nationwide injunctions—court orders that block government policies across the entire country while legal challenges proceed. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued that such universal injunctions likely exceed the authority Congress has granted to federal courts. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." Strong Dissent Signals Deep Division Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a rare oral summary of her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion a "travesty" and warning it would "cause chaos for the families of all affected children." Such public dissents are typically reserved for cases where justices feel particularly strongly about the outcome. The ruling sends the cases back to lower courts to determine how the decision will be implemented in practice, leaving open possibilities for continued legal challenges to Trump's policy. The Broader Immigration Context Trump's birthright citizenship ban represents just one piece of his administration's comprehensive effort to restrict both legal and illegal immigration. Since returning to office, he has: Barred entry from more than a dozen countries Accelerated deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members Suspended refugee admissions Removed legal protections for over 530,000 migrants The president signed the executive order ending automatic citizenship on his first day back in the White House, immediately triggering lawsuits from 22 states and immigrant advocacy groups. Constitutional Battle Lines Drawn At the heart of the ongoing legal fight lies the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War to establish citizenship for freed enslaved people and "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This citizenship clause specifically overturned the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott decision, which had denied citizenship to Black Americans. Trump administration officials argue they can end birthright citizenship because undocumented immigrants lack permanent legal status and therefore are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government. However, most constitutional scholars, along with the Democrat-led states and immigrant rights groups challenging the policy, contend this interpretation would require fundamentally rewriting the 14th Amendment. They point to established Supreme Court precedent protecting citizenship for virtually everyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions for children of foreign diplomats. The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in its landmark 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, ruling that a child born in San Francisco remained a U.S. citizen despite his immigrant parents being "subjects of the Emperor of China." What Comes Next While Friday's ruling gives the Trump administration procedural breathing room, the fundamental constitutional questions surrounding birthright citizenship remain unresolved. Lower courts will now determine how to implement the Supreme Court's guidance on nationwide injunctions, potentially setting up future appeals that could force the justices to confront the constitutional issues they avoided this time. For affected families and immigration advocates, the decision creates immediate uncertainty about the status of children born to undocumented parents, even as the legal battle continues to unfold in courts across the country.